Updated May 27, 2025 at 2:42 PM EDT
With elite U.S. universities in President Trump's crosshairs, the leader of Harvard University says institutions need to double down on their "commitment to the good of the nation" and be firm in what they stand for.
The Trump administration, acting on its claims that Harvard has failed to stamp out antisemitism on campus, froze more than $2 billion in research grants and contracts in April and attempted to revoke the school's ability to enroll international students last week. The university is suing the federal government for both actions.
Harvard President Alan Garber told Morning Edition that he finds the measures taken by Trump to be "perplexing." While he acknowledges there is work to be done on campus, he said he struggles to see a link between funding freezes and fighting antisemitism.
"Why cut off research funding? Sure, it hurts Harvard, but it hurts the country because after all, the research funding is not a gift," Garber said, adding that these dollars are awarded to efforts deemed "high-priority work" by the federal government.
On Tuesday, the Trump administration asked federal agencies to cancel an estimated $100 million worth of remaining contracts with Harvard by June 6.
NPR reached out to the White House for comment, but did not immediately receive a response.
As evidence of how his university's work directly benefits the U.S. public, Garber points to recent honors awarded to Harvard faculty by the Breakthrough Prize, known as "The Oscars of Science," for their work on obesity and diabetes drugs and gene editing, used to correct disease-causing genetic variations.
The Trump administration's multi-billion dollar funding freeze came after Harvard refused demands to change policies around hiring and admissions, eliminate DEI programs, or screen international students who are "supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism," as the administration put it.
The federal government's Joint Task Force to combat antisemitism said in an April statement that Harvard's lack of compliance "reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation's most prestigious universities and colleges – that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws. The disruption of learning that has plagued campuses in recent years is unacceptable. The harassment of Jewish students is intolerable. It is time for elite universities to take the problem seriously and commit to meaningful change if they wish to continue receiving taxpayer support."
After a federal judge blocked the administration's attempt to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll international students last week, Trump posted on his Truth Social that the home countries of those students are "not at all friendly to the United States" and "pay NOTHING toward their student's education." The president's post also said his administration wants "to know who those foreign students are."
Garber sat for an interview with NPR's Steve Inskeep and discussed Harvard's ongoing legal fights with the Trump administration, the work of major research universities, and the administration's concerns about antisemitism on campus and its assertion that Harvard lacks political "viewpoint diversity."
This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Interview highlights
Steve Inskeep: As you know very well, Mr. President, the Trump administration has taken a number of actions against Harvard University. They've cut off grants in a number of different ways. And most recently, they've ordered all international students to leave the university for some other university or for their home countries. In your lawsuit, the most recent of your lawsuits about this, you argue very quickly that this isn't really about international students, that it's an act of retaliation. What is really going on, in your view?
Alan Garber: In my view, the federal government is saying that we need to address antisemitism in particular, but it has raised other issues, and it includes claims that we lack viewpoint diversity. We have been very clear that we think we do have issues, and I would particularly emphasize the speech issues. We think it's a real problem, if – particularly a research university's – students don't feel free to speak their minds, when faculty feel that they have to think twice before they talk about the subjects that they're teaching. That's a real problem that we need to address. And it's particularly concerning when people have views that they think are unpopular. And the administration and others have said conservatives are too few on campus and their views are not welcome. In so far as that's true, that's a problem we really need to address.
Inskeep: Is it true?
Garber: I think that we have heard from some people that they do feel that way. What is perplexing is the measures that they have taken to address these that don't even hit the same people that they believe are causing the problems. Why cut off research funding? Sure, it hurts Harvard, but it hurts the country because after all, the research funding is not a gift. The research funding is given to universities and other research institutions to carry out work – research work – that the federal government designates as high-priority work. It is work that they want done. They are paying to have that work conducted. Shutting off that work does not help the country, even as it punishes Harvard, and it is hard to see the link between that and, say, antisemitism.
Inskeep: Is the administration trying to damage, destroy or capture your university?
Garber: I don't know fully what the motivations are, but I do know that there are people who are fighting a cultural battle. I don't know if that is what is driving the administration. They don't like what's happened to campuses, and sometimes they don't like what we represent. What I can tell you is Harvard is a very old institution, much older than the country. And as long as there has been a United States of America, Harvard has thought that its role is to serve the nation.
Inskeep: In the letter cutting off your ability to host international students, the Department of Homeland Security made a number of accusations, including that Harvard, brazenly refused to provide information that was demanded about international students and that you also "ignored a follow up question about them." Is either of those statements true?
Garber: To the best of my knowledge, they are not true. I need to add, by the way, that this is clearly the subject of litigation, as you pointed out earlier. So we have endeavored to comply fully in line with the law.
Inskeep: Are you going to be able to show in court that you provided information, which I believe your lawsuit says you did?
Garber: I believe we have provided ample information in line with the law.
Inskeep: In that same statement announcing that you would lose the right to host international students, the DHS was able to link to one of Harvard's own documents. It's a report by a presidential commission to you. So it's your commission investigating problems at Harvard University. And I read through the document. There are a lot of accusations in there about things that have gone wrong here and my eye fell on one sentence, which I wrote down. I'll quote it to you: "Since fall 2023, different factions at Harvard have fought to force various university leaders to make statements, invest, divest, hire, fire, doxx, un-doxx, discipline students and undiscipline them." How would you define the problem?
Garber: Well, clearly, there has been tremendous division on campus over that period of time. There are faculty and students who disagreed with one another about what the university should do. But the main purpose of that report was to identify the problems that we face, particularly with regard to our Jewish and Israeli students. Some of those recommendations we had already adopted, some we are currently working through. But I do believe that we have a real problem in this regard, or we had a real problem. We have done a lot to address it and we will continue to work at it.
Inskeep: Would you say that antisemitism on your campus is better or worse, or about the same as it would be anywhere else in America?
Garber: I believe that we have made substantial progress on campus over the past year, and that's what I've heard from many faculty and staff and students. There has been real progress. Comparing what goes on on campus to what goes on in the rest of the country is a little bit difficult because the manifestations may be different. From what I've heard, we have many fewer violent incidents. They're almost unheard of on our campus and probably a lot less vandalism. The main manifestation of antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias that we have grappled with has to do with social exclusion. It has to do with shunning. If a student sits down at a dining room table and they have good conversations with other students who don't know them, and when the other students find out that that student is Israeli, if they refuse to continue to speak to them, we have a serious problem that we need to address.
Inskeep: Is that a small example of what you're trying to do in a large way? You want to allow all sorts of ideas, but you want people to be able to engage each other civilly.
Garber: Exactly. We want people to be able to discuss difficult topics with one another, especially when they disagree. We shouldn't be in an echo chamber. Everyone in our community needs to hear other views. And let me add, that's one reason why it is so important for us to be able to have international students on our campus. There is so much that they contribute to our environment and they enable everyone else to open their minds.
Inskeep: Is this what you mean when, in the lawsuit, you say that without international students, which is a quarter of your student body, Harvard would not be Harvard?
Garber: Absolutely.
Inskeep: What would you say to someone in the middle of the country who is listening to us and maybe thinking, "I really don't have a stake in this? I didn't go to Harvard. I'm not sending my kid to Harvard. I really don't like Harvard that much. This seems to be about a different kind of people. And Harvard deserves what they're getting. Or in any case, it doesn't matter much to me." What would you say to somebody who has that attitude?
Garber: I would ask them to learn a little bit more, not only about Harvard, but about universities like Harvard – that is research universities. At the center of our university is teaching and learning. But actually, if you look at the activities of the university, so much of this is about research. There's so many discoveries that have come from Harvard and other research universities, advances in cancer and treatments of cancer of all kinds.
A faculty member of ours just got the Breakthrough Prize for work that led to the discovery of GLP-1 drugs, which are now revolutionizing how we approach obesity, diabetes and many other conditions. Another one of our faculty received the Breakthrough Prize this year for advances in gene editing, which is already being used to cure diseases. This is a huge part of what we do. Everybody benefits from the research work of universities like ours. And it is not only about Harvard. And I think that's important to keep in mind. The kinds of changes that the administration has begun and is contemplating, which include deep cuts to the National Institutes of Health and to the National Science Foundation, will affect all research universities and will have a real impact on the ability of the United States to remain at the forefront of science and technology.
Inskeep: When President Trump says, as he did this week, that Harvard's grants ought to go to trade schools instead, how do you respond to that?
Garber: I would say that the federal government has the authority through the budgeting process to reallocate funds. But the question to ask is what problem is he trying to solve by doing that? The money that goes to research universities in the form of grants and contracts, which is almost all of the federal support that we get, is used to pay for work that we perform at the behest of the government. So in reallocating to some other use, including trade schools, it means that work just won't be performed. So the right question is, is this the most effective use of federal funding? Do you really want to cut back on research dollars? I'm less concerned about whether it goes to a trade school or if it goes to some other project, like working on highways. The real question is, how much value does the federal government get from its expenditures on research? There is a lot of actual research demonstrating the returns to the American people have been enormous.
Inskeep: One other thing in reading the DHS statement about Harvard, there is a line that struck me: "Let this serve as a warning." They're talking about their actions against Harvard. "Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country." I wonder if you agree with that statement that this episode is, in fact, a warning to all universities across the country.
Garber: Well, they said it and I have to believe it, and I've repeated it myself. And that is how it's understood by the other leaders of other universities that I have spoken to. It is a warning. They see this as a message that if you don't comply with what we're demanding, these will be the consequences.
Inskeep: If you were going to make a warning to other universities, how would you phrase it?
Garber: I would say that we need to be firm in our commitments to what we stand for. And what we stand for – I believe I speak for other universities – is education, pursuit of the truth, helping to educate people for better futures. And hopefully our own students, after they graduate from our institutions, go out and serve the world. In the end, we're about producing and disseminating knowledge and serving our nation and our world. When we fail in that, then we can expect to be attacked. So number one, I think we all need to redouble our commitment to the good of the nation and the world. And I know my fellow leaders fully embrace that.
The radio version of this story was produced by Ana Perez.
Copyright 2025 NPR
