Harvard Kennedy School announces layoffs after Trump cuts billions in funding
The Harvard Kennedy School of Government will lay off staff after federal funding cuts and endowment tax threats on Wednesday, according to an email from the dean of the school that was obtained by Fox News Digital.
Without mentioning the Trump administration directly, Harvard Kennedy School Dean Jeremy M. Weinstein announced in an email to faculty and staff that the cuts were in response to "unprecedented new headwinds" creating "significant financial challenges." These included a "substantial proposed increase in the endowment tax" and "massive cuts to federal funding of research."
He also cited the impact on international student enrollment after the administration eliminated the student visa program due to "pro-terrorist conduct" at Harvard's campus protests. According to the Kennedy School, international students made up 59 percent of the school's student body last year, and 52 percent on average in the past five years.
The Kennedy School has been planning for budget cuts since February, but the White House's recent actions appear to have exacerbated the circumstances.
The Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in funding to the university and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status due to its handling of antisemitism on campus in the wake of the October 7 terror attacks on Israel by Hamas.
The Department of Education's Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism released a statement on May 13, citing recent reporting that "has exposed the Harvard Law Review's (HLR) pattern of endemic race discrimination when evaluating articles for inclusion in its journal."
The findings resulted in the Trump administration cutting an additional $450 million in grants from the university.
In addition to layoffs, Harvard has implemented "important steps" to reduce costs across the Kennedy School, Weinstein said, such as pauses in hiring and merit-based pay, ending a lease on the first floor of an office building, halting "non-urgent" construction and renovation projects, and "reducing spending" across each core department.
"Unfortunately, those efforts alone will not be enough to address our current financial challenges," the dean wrote. "As a result, we need to lay off some members of our team and restructure other positions to ensure the long-term financial future of the Kennedy School."
Weinstein stated that managers would inform staff affected by the layoffs on Wednesday afternoon.
"This is an extremely difficult moment, and one that we did everything possible to avoid," Weinstein added.
"I am truly sorry that we need to take this step as we navigate unprecedented challenges as a School and University," Weinstein wrote, while also noting that the administration's actions caused "even greater financial uncertainty."
The Harvard Kennedy School declined to disclose to Fox News Digital how many staff members were laid off.
The Harvard School of Public Health implemented layoffs in April and other schools are considering cutting staff as well, the Harvard Crimson reported Thursday.
The Trump administration did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
9 minutes ago
- CNN
Senate braces for first big vote on Trump agenda – with support still unclear
Senate Republicans are about to face a major test of loyalty to President Donald Trump, as the chamber braces for its first vote on whether to advance the president's giant tax cuts and spending bill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and his team have been fiercely lobbying their members to get in line behind the measure, with Trump and White House officials also leaning heavily on the remaining GOP holdouts. Trump met with two key holdouts — Sen. Rick Scott of Florida and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin — on Saturday, just hours before GOP leaders hoped to hold the vote, according to those senators' close colleague, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. He has also spoken to other critical votes, like Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who earlier Saturday declared his support for the bill. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, another critic of the bill, golfed with the president on Saturday morning, according to Sen. Lindsay Graham. But it's not yet clear whether Thune will be able to limit defections on a procedural vote, to start centrists like Sen. Thom Tillis and a small group of GOP hardliners — Lee, Scott and Johnson — still pushing for changes to the bill. But GOP leadership believe they will ultimately succeed, thanks, in part, to immense pressure from Trump. Already two Republicans, Tillis and Johnson, have said they would block the bill from moving ahead. That leaves Thune just one more vote to lose. It all amounts to an intense Saturday scramble for Trump and GOP leaders, who are intent on passing the president's agenda as quickly as possible. Trump has told GOP leaders he wants to sign the bill at the White House on July 4 – but that would still require approval from the narrowly divided GOP-controlled House, which is also no guarantee. This story is breaking and will be updated.
CNN
10 minutes ago
- CNN
Senate braces for first big vote on Trump agenda – with support still unclear
Senate Republicans are about to face a major test of loyalty to President Donald Trump, as the chamber braces for its first vote on whether to advance the president's giant tax cuts and spending bill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and his team have been fiercely lobbying their members to get in line behind the measure, with Trump and White House officials also leaning heavily on the remaining GOP holdouts. Trump met with two key holdouts — Sen. Rick Scott of Florida and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin — on Saturday, just hours before GOP leaders hoped to hold the vote, according to those senators' close colleague, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. He has also spoken to other critical votes, like Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who earlier Saturday declared his support for the bill. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, another critic of the bill, golfed with the president on Saturday morning, according to Sen. Lindsay Graham. But it's not yet clear whether Thune will be able to limit defections on a procedural vote, to start centrists like Sen. Thom Tillis and a small group of GOP hardliners — Lee, Scott and Johnson — still pushing for changes to the bill. But GOP leadership believe they will ultimately succeed, thanks, in part, to immense pressure from Trump. Already two Republicans, Tillis and Johnson, have said they would block the bill from moving ahead. That leaves Thune just one more vote to lose. It all amounts to an intense Saturday scramble for Trump and GOP leaders, who are intent on passing the president's agenda as quickly as possible. Trump has told GOP leaders he wants to sign the bill at the White House on July 4 – but that would still require approval from the narrowly divided GOP-controlled House, which is also no guarantee. This story is breaking and will be updated.
Forbes
14 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why The Washington Post Is Drowning In Bad Headlines
The Washington Post Building at One Franklin Square Building in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew ...) I didn't think I'd be back writing about the troubles at The Washington Post so soon, following my last piece from just a few days ago, but here we are. That earlier piece, which you can read here, focused on the Post having lost tens of thousands of subscribers over the last several years, with the paper's current average daily paid subscriptions now at a new low. Despite the financial backing of owner Jeff Bezos, the reality is that Post hasn't been able to convert fleeting interest from readers into long-term loyalty; worse still, internal dysfunction and shifting editorial strategies continue to cloud the Post's identity and future. And, unfortunately, two new developments suggest the challenges aren't letting up anytime soon. Another misstep at The Washington Post Let's start with a newsroom experiment that executive editor Matt Murray detailed in a company memo. It's a new initiative that will allow individuals mentioned in the Post's stories to annotate those articles directly on the site. The movie is being framed as a way to 'deepen the conversation' and keep reader engagement on the Post's platform, rather than that discussion migrating away to X, Reddit, or elsewhere. But, come on: It's an absolute certainty that this is going to end up backfiring in spectacular fashion. This initiative is the kind of idea that looks fantastic on a whiteboard: Start letting some of the sources who are quoted in articles add annotations to the articles they're mentioned in. More engagement = everybody wins. Or something like that. In reality, the idea of real-time rebuttals next to reported journalism opens up an unnecessary Pandora's box. What happens when a powerful figure – or anyone, really – uses the feature in bad faith to undermine verified facts? Or tries to insert spin into the conversation? Will readers trust the original reporting, or will the very presence of a sidebar reply create the illusion of 'two sides' to a matter of fact? Reporters will technically be able to respond, but as I see it this risks adding 'debate monitor' to their job description. That the paper's management decided to embark on such an initiative at all, meanwhile, should also put this next bit of negative news into context. A rebuke of The Washington Post's Bezos era Pamela Alma Weymouth, granddaughter of the late Post publisher Katharine Graham, has written a personal and extremely scathing commentary in The Nation about the situation at the Post — among other things, accusing Bezos of systematically dismantling the institution her grandmother once protected. She lays the blame for much of the Post's woes at the feet of the Amazon founder. 'In the face of a more tyrannical Trump,' she writes, 'Bezos has retreated. He's muzzled his editorial page. Exceptional writers, editors, cartoonists have fled. Eight days before the election, the Post canceled a scheduled endorsement of Kamala Harris — breaking with decades of precedent. Four hundred Post journalists signed a protest letter. Two hundred and fifty thousand readers canceled their subscriptions.' Things got worse earlier this year, she continued, when Bezos dictated that Opinion writers would be expected to align with 'personal liberties and free markets,' leaving little or even no room for dissenting views. Editor David Shipley and others resigned, and another wave of subscription cancellations followed. Weymouth continues: 'If the free press can be manipulated by politicians, if truth is viewed as optional, if The Washington Post goes dark under Bezos, then we lose more than a legend. We lose the very thing that makes America a democracy.' Weymouth's commentary is particularly damning in light of recent revelations about Bezos' companies engaging with Trumpworld while the Post, at the same time, shifted its own editorial voice. It's the kind of rebuke that ought to cut deep, given that it's rooted in the legacy of the family that once owned The Washington Post — their ownership now relegated to a bygone era of journalism. To be sure, none of this means the Post is finished. There are still plenty of talented reporters who fill its newsroom, but decisions from the leadership have nonetheless put the paper in a precarious spot. Legacy isn't a business model. Without a clear editorial mission and a bold plan to rebuild reader loyalty, the fact of the matter is that even a paper as storied as The Washington Post won't be able to successfully right the ship — and avoid the inevitable.
