Today, in the journal Nature, it was reported that Trump cut nearly 1,000 grants from Harvard University. These included 193 grants valued at $150 million. These were cut by the National Science Foundation (NSF). Additionally, there were 56 grants worth $105 billion by the Department of Defense. Finally, more than 600 grants came from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). These were worth approximately $2.2 billion over several years. This is a significant impact on Harvard, representing 11% of the college’s annual $6.4 billion budget. It’s important to note that none of these grants address the antisemitism on the campus of Harvard University. Trump also has claimed that Harvard has “engaged in race discrimination” in admissions.
When Donald Trump launched his recent political assault on Harvard University, he threatened to revoke federal funding. He also threatened international student visas and autonomy. Many dismissed it as a personal grudge match. And it is, in part. The animosity began in the 1980s. Trump partnered with the Pritzker family on the Grand Hyatt hotel project in New York City. The partnership soured, leading to lawsuits and public disputes. Trump accused the Pritzkers of exploiting him during financial difficulties, vowing revenge once he regained his footing. This personal vendetta seems to have resurfaced. Penny Pritzker, a prominent member of the Pritzker family, now serves as the senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation. This is the university’s highest governing body.
His decades-old feud with the Pritzker family adds a layer of retribution to his actions. But to view this as merely a personal vendetta is to underestimate the scale of the threat. This is not just about Harvard. It is an attack against the entire architecture of American higher education.
Disclosure: I am an emeritus professor of science education at Georgia State University. I was a professor there from 1969 to 2003.
I also co-directed an international project from 1983 to 2000. This project brought together American and Soviet researchers, teachers, and students. It was called the Global Thinking Project (GTP). Soon, educators and students from Australia, the Czech Republic, Spain, and other countries joined this international program. We received grants from local, state, and federal departments. Our project emphasized people-to-people diplomacy, citizen science, and the mutual development of global consciousness. The Trump administration does not value this.
A Threat to Institutional Autonomy
Any school, but especially colleges and universities, promotes openness and inquiry. Classroom environments must be free from outside forces that aim to restrict or even ban specific inquiries. At the heart of this attack is a dangerous precedent: federal overreach into the governance of universities. Noem’s Department of Homeland Security is demanding that Harvard alter its admissions practices. It wants Harvard to scrap its diversity programs and reorganize its leadership under federal guidance. This shatters the long-standing principle of academic independence. If Harvard—arguably the most powerful university in the nation—can be pressured into submission, who’s next?
Universities have begun to censor their curricula, research priorities, or even faculty hiring decisions to appease federal authorities. What we’re witnessing is the creeping erosion of the First Amendment, cloaked in bureaucratic demands.
Recent developments at Kennesaw State University (KSU) raise profound concerns. They include the elimination of the Black Studies major and the closure of several identity-based resource centers. These changes prompt questions about the direction of public higher education in Georgia. While administrative justifications cite low enrollment and strategic realignment, the broader context suggests a troubling retreat. There is a retreat from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
The Chilling Effect on International Education
For 20 years, I worked deeply with others in Georgia public schools and colleges. I did this as part of my career at Georgia State. Together, we participated in an international education project. The Global Thinking Project (GTP) began as citizen diplomacy among American and Russian educators and psychologists. It emerged as a youth and teacher activism project. The project used a telecommunications network to connect people. Initially, teachers and researchers exchanged ideas. Afterward, American and Russian students participated in an exchange program.
In 1983, a group of 30 North Americans went to the Soviet Union without official invitations. They established relationships with Soviet psychologists and educators. These connections included their institutions as well, leading to formal agreements between American and Soviet universities, research institutes, and schools.The project engaged hundreds of teachers and students. They participated in a cross-cultural collaborative effort. This effort involved environmental science studies, Internet activities, and teacher professional development. Over nearly 20 years, educators, primarily from Georgia, developed a hands-across-the-globe program with colleagues and students in Russia. They then partnered with teachers in other countries, including Australia, the Czech Republic, Singapore, and Spain.
Through relentless and consistent reciprocal travel, these early efforts evolved into an activism program for youth and teachers. They used face-to-face collaboration and Internet-based collaboration to engage in cultural, scientific, and educational activities. The Global Thinking Project was the result of these collaborations. It established a cross-cultural environmental science curriculum. The project also created teacher enhancement institutes, technology applications, and student and teacher exchanges. The GTP project is documented at its archival website. Cross cultural education is crucial to a world in which people from different nations value and collaborate with each other. We saw this happen in our work in the GTP.
Trump’s attack on international students is shameful. The application of foreign students to our colleges and universities is civil and valuable. It benefits students coming to US higher education institutions. It is also valuable to American students attending those schools.
Revoking Harvard’s certification to host them jeopardizes not only its global standing but the future of American science and scholarship. International students contribute billions to the U.S. economy, help drive research breakthroughs, and enrich the educational experience of all students. Making them pawns in a political dispute weakens America’s standing as the premier destination for global talent.
Trump’s rhetoric around Harvard is troubling. He accuses it of promoting “anti-Americanism” and “radicalism.” These accusations mirror tactics used by autocratic regimes to silence dissent. These terms are rarely defined, but always politically expedient. What’s at stake is the ability of scholars to ask hard questions. Scholars need to pursue truth free of interference. The humanities and social sciences are particularly vulnerable. If this climate of fear takes hold, the very soul of higher education is at risk.
Most insidious is how these attacks deepen public distrust of universities. Trump depicts elite institutions as corrupt. He describes them as un-American. These narratives fuel resentment among segments of the public already skeptical of higher education. This polarization undermines the shared national investment in our colleges and universities as places of civic formation and opportunity.
A Dangerous Shift in Funding and Values
The proposal to strip $3 billion in grants from Harvard. It would redirect the funds to trade schools. This sounds populist. Yet, it’s a calculated devaluation of research. This includes liberal arts and public scholarship. Yes, trade schools are vital. But research labs develop new vaccines. Public policy programs train future leaders. Classrooms foster democratic citizenship. A functioning society needs both, not one at the expense of the other.
We risk a massive brain drain. Political instability is creeping into the university system. As a result, top scholars and students look elsewhere for a more stable academic climate. They consider Europe, Canada, or Asia. The U.S. needs every edge in artificial intelligence. It also requires advancements in climate innovation and global diplomacy. Sabotaging our universities is a national security blunder.
Retaliation as a Governing Tool
The normalization of political retribution is a dangerous development in governance. Trump’s targeting of Harvard seems motivated not by public interest but by personal vendetta and ideological warfare. This sets a grim precedent. If you criticize the regime, you risk being defunded. If you are simply governed by those who once crossed it, you risk being dismantled and demonized.
Conclusion: This Is About All of Us
Whether you attended Harvard or any university, this moment affects you. This holds even if you haven’t participated in any university. America’s colleges and universities are not just ivory towers—they are engines of innovation, progress, and pluralism. The Trump administration’s assault on Harvard is not an isolated grudge. It serves as a warning to every institution. These are the institutions that educate, enlighten, and dare to challenge power.
We must resist the temptation to see this as political theater. It is a fight for the future of American higher education.
You must be logged in to post a comment.