
Columbia tried to negotiate with the Trump administration. Here's what Harvard can learn from its efforts.
'I see [Columbia] as conceding and for nothing; I see it as neglecting its values and opening the door for the administration to do the same to other institutions,' said Antoinette Flores, director of higher education accountability and quality at New America, a liberal-leaning
Washington think tank.
Advertisement
Columbia's leadership has argued many policy shifts were reasonable responses to campus protests — particularly around the war in Gaza — that made Jewish and Muslim students deeply uncomfortable.
Columbia's president, Claire Shipman, issued a statement June 23 acknowledging the university was 'facing the decimation of decades of research' because of Trump's cuts. She also insisted it hadn't capitulated to Trump.
Advertisement
'Following the law and attempting to resolve a complaint is not capitulation. That narrative is incorrect,' Shipman said.
A Columbia spokesperson did not address whether the school received any of the retracted $400 million, instead referring to Shipman's June statement.
But researchers there said their work has become increasingly challenging, with no sign of when, or if, the funding will come back.
Joshua Gordon, chair of Columbia's psychiatry program, said his department lost roughly $25 million and hasn't received renewals for existing grants or money for projects they've expensed.
'We are continuously told by the administration of Columbia University that negotiations with the federal government continue but other than that, we haven't been given any details,' Gordon said.
Katherine Keyes, a Columbia professor of epidemiology, said her department scrambled to place researchers no longer appointed at Columbia elsewhere and cobble together stabilization funds to retain existing staff. Funds for her research on how environmental factors affect young people's mental health were terminated in March, not for cause or misconduct but 'because of allegations against the institution' — a fact she called a 'difficult pill to swallow.'
Harvard's and Columbia's difficulties in making deals with the federal government come as other schools implement dramatic changes to avoid Trump's wrath. The University of Virginia president last month resigned after the Justice Department demanded his departure to end an investigation into the school's diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The University of Pennsylvania this past week agreed to ban transgender women from participating in women's sports and to strip Lia Thomas, a transgender swimmer, of her records and titles.
For Harvard, the costs of the standoff grow by the day: Trump has announced cuts at Harvard that dwarf Columbia's. Though Harvard won some early court victories, the federal government retains many points of leverage to make university administrators' lives more miserable.
Advertisement
Also at risk is the public approval Harvard gained for fighting Trump, support
by demonstrating the opposition to Trump.
'It's hard to imagine a successful negotiation for Harvard because both sides have to appear to win — the administration in Washington wants to be able to declare victory, and so does Harvard,' said Larry Ladd, a former Harvard budget chief.
In many ways, Columbia's and Harvard's stories are similar: Both campuses were for
two years roiled by student protests over the war in Gaza. Both faced investigations over allegedly allowing unchecked harassment of Jewish and Israeli students. And both underwent leadership changes: Columbia's and Harvard's presidents in place at the beginning of the turbulent 2023-24 school year both departed before students returned last fall.
After the federal government said it would withdraw roughly $400 million promised to Columbia, the school made changes
in March, such as banning masks used to hide protesters' identities and appointing a new administrator to oversee departments studying the Middle East.
Those did not appear to stop the onslaught. The National Institutes of Health in April directed officials, without notice, to stop issuing grants to schools including Columbia. In May, Columbia announced it would lay off nearly 180 staff members with federally funded salaries.
Then, the
Health and Human Services Department in May found Columbia violated civil rights law by 'showing deliberate indifference' to hostility toward Jewish students. In June, the Department of Education recommended challenging Columbia's accreditation — jeopardizing even more federal resources.
Advertisement
Officials with Columbia and the Trump administration acknowledged talks are ongoing.
Still, Education Secretary Linda McMahon told The Wall Street Journal Columbia has 'made such good progress' and the sides 'possibly are getting close to a negotiated resolution.'
Trump in May said Columbia was out of the 'hot seat,' adding it was 'very anti-Semitic and lots of other things but they're working with us on finding a solution.' Harvard, by comparison, 'wants to fight, they want to show how smart they are, and they're getting their ass kicked,' he said.
Harvard, meanwhile, earlier this spring was in talks with Trump officials about how to restore funding. But after officials sent the school their demands in April, president Alan Garber said Harvard wouldn't allow the government to dictate its decisions, a move celebrated by academics and Trump critics nationwide.
Harvard has since waged several court battles against the administration, which
took aim at Harvard's international students and nearly all
its federal research funding. Late last month, the administration
Political observers said Harvard, as it re-enters negotiations, has more advantages than Columbia: It benefits from a larger endowment and recognizable brand. Trump officials are eager to work toward a deal there, seeing it as the strongest place to influence higher education.
But in some ways, Harvard, along with other higher education leaders, may have more to lose if Garber gives in.
'Because we put so much faith in their leadership, because of the size of their endowment, because it's the oldest university in the country, because it's
Harvard,
it really opens the floodgates for the Trump administration to have massive incursions into the operations of higher education," said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors.
Advertisement
The sweeping nature of the government's approach — and uncertainty about what will be enough — complicates negotiations. Attacks have come from all corners, from the Health and Human Services to Homeland Security departments.
'You can't negotiate with a party that is inconsistent and unreliable, and that appears to be the difficulty Columbia had,' said Ladd, now with the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.
Harvard and Columbia are 'in a precarious position, but they have both opened lines of communication and can credibly claim they have taken some significant action,' said Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute in D.C.
The question, he said, is 'will that be enough that they can reach common ground with the administration and, if they do, can they spin it back to their campus communities as a principled agreement rather than capitulation?'
Anjali Huynh can be reached at

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rare trial to begin in challenge to Trump-backed deportations of pro-Palestinian campus activists
By Nate Raymond BOSTON (Reuters) -Groups representing U.S. university professors seeking to protect international students and faculty who engage in pro-Palestinian advocacy from being deported are set to do what no other litigants challenging the Trump administration's hardline immigration agenda have done so far: Take it to trial. A two-week non-jury trial in the professors' case scheduled to kick off on Monday in Boston marks a rarity in the hundreds of lawsuits that have been filed nationally challenging Republican President Donald Trump's efforts to carry out mass deportations, slash spending and reshape the federal government. In many of those cases, judges have issued quick rulings early on in the proceedings without any witnesses being called to testify. But U.S. District Judge William Young in keeping with his long-standing practice instead ordered a trial in the professors' case, saying it was the "best way to get at truth." The lawsuit was filed in March after immigration authorities arrested recent Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, the first target of Trump's effort to deport non-citizen students with pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel views. Since then, the administration has canceled the visas of hundreds of other students and scholars and ordered the arrest of some, including Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University student who was taken into custody by masked and plainclothes agents after co-writing an opinion piece criticizing her school's response to Israel's war in Gaza. In their cases and others, judges have ordered the release of students detained by immigration authorities after they argued the administration retaliated against them for their pro-Palestinian advocacy in violation of the free speech guarantees of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Their arrests form the basis of the case before Young, which was filed by the American Association of University Professors and its chapters at Harvard, Rutgers and New York University, and the Middle East Studies Association. They allege the State Department and Department of Homeland Security adopted a policy of revoking visas for non-citizen students and faculty who engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy and arresting, detaining and deporting them as well. That policy, they say, was adopted after Trump signed executive orders in January directing the agencies to protect Americans from non-citizens who 'espouse hateful ideology' and to "vigorously" combat anti-Semitism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in late March said he had revoked more than 300 visas and warned that the Trump administration was looking every day for "these lunatics." The goal, the plaintiffs say, has been to suppress the types of protests that have roiled college campuses after Israel launched its war in Gaza following the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. Trump administration officials have frequently spoken about the efforts to target student protesters for visa revocations. Yet in court, the administration has defended itself by arguing the plaintiffs are challenging a deportation policy that does not exist and cannot point to any statute, rule, regulation or directive codifying it. "We don't deport people based on ideology," Homeland Security Department spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem "has made it clear that anyone who thinks they can come to America and hide behind the First Amendment to advocate for anti-American and anti-Semitic violence and terrorism - think again. You are not welcome here," McLaughlin said. The trial will determine whether the administration has violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment free speech rights. If Young concludes it has, he will determine a remedy in a second phase of the case. Young has described the lawsuit as "an important free speech case" and said that as alleged in the plaintiffs' complaint, "it is hard to imagine a policy more focused on intimidating its targets from practicing protected political speech." The case is the second Trump-era legal challenge so far that has gone to trial before Young, an 84-year-old appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan. While other Trump-era cases have been resolved through motions and arguments in court, the veteran jurist has long espoused the value of trials and in a recent order lamented the "virtual abandonment by the federal judiciary of any sense that its fact-finding processes are exceptional. Young last month after another non-jury trial delivered civil rights advocates and Democratic-led states a win by ordering the reinstatement of hundreds of National Institutes of Health research grants that were unlawfully terminated because of their perceived promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump to terminate deportation protection for thousands of Hondurans and Nicaraguans in U.S
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Department of Homeland Security will terminate deportation protections for thousands of Hondurans and Nicaraguans in the U.S., according to U.S. government notices posted on Monday, part of a broad effort by President Donald Trump to strip legal status from migrants. The terminations, effective September 6, would end Temporary Protected Status for an estimated 72,000 Hondurans and 4,000 Nicaraguans who have had access to the legal status since 1999, according to a pair of notices posted online on Monday. Trump, a Republican, has sought to end temporary legal status for hundreds of thousands of migrants in the U.S., including some who have lived and worked there legally for decades. The Trump administration argues that deportation protections were overused in the past and that many immigrants no longer merit protections. Democrats and advocates say that the migrants could be forced to return to dangerous conditions and that U.S. employers depend on their labor. During his 2017-2021 presidency, Trump sought to end most TPS enrollment, including the designations covering Honduras and Nicaragua, but was blocked by federal courts.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A reignited Trump-Musk feud burns Tesla investors, shares of EV company tumble 8%
Shares of Tesla tumbled 8% at the opening bell Monday as the feud between CEO Elon Musk and Trump reignited over the weekend. Musk, once a top donor and ally of Trump, announced that he was forming a third political party in protest over the Republican spending bill that passed late last week. Musk has been highly critical of the bill, which he said would kill jobs and bog down burgeoning industries. In a social media post on Sunday, Trump said that the billionaire owner of SpaceX, Tesla and X had gone 'off the rails' in recent weeks. Investors fear that Musk's companies, which receive significant subsidies from the federal government, could suffer further if his feud with Trump continues to fester. "With the autonomous future ahead and the AI Revolution in full force Musk/Tesla do not need to keep poking the bear as Trump can create more hurdles for Musk/Tesla/SpaceX over the coming years if this political battle gets nastier heading into mid-terms in 2026," Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives wrote in a note to clients late Sunday. Tesla shares have been extremely volatile since Musk went all-in for Trump in the run-up to last year's election with the company facing a growing backlash as a result of Musk's embrace of right-wing politics and his role in the Trump administration. Shares have plunged in Europe and the U.S.. Industry analysts believe a large part of that slump is being driven by Musk's affiliation with Trump and far-right parties like Germany AfD. But Tesla is facing rising competition globally, particularly in China. Since hitting an all-time high of $479.76 on Dec. 17, Tesla shares have lost about 40% of their value. Tesla shares are down about $26 each since Thursday's close, to $289.75. Sign in to access your portfolio