
The Trump-Harvard showdown is the latest front in a long conservative war against academia
It's a fight by conservatives that dates back to Ronald Reagan, the hitherto spiritual leader of the Republican party, all the way to McCarthyism and beyond, experts say, as the rightwing scraps to seize more control in a manner that is 'part of a standard playbook of authoritarianism'.
Trump reacted furiously this week after the president of Harvard University, the US's oldest, richest and most prestigious college, refused to acquiesce to demands that would have given the government control over whom it hired and admitted, and what it taught.
But the anger wasn't just that Harvard had refused to roll over. It was that the move represented, for the time being, a step back for the Trump administration in what some believe is part of a wider attempt to overhaul US democracy at large.
'It's as dangerous as anything I've ever experienced in my lifetime,' said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors.
'They're attempting to undermine and destabilize and ultimately control higher education. And at one level, it's an assault on higher education, at another level, it could be seen as prevalent to a full-on assault on democracy. So I think this is a threat to the future of the United States of America, and because of this country's role in the world, a threat to the entirety of the globe at this moment.'
The government said on Monday it planned to freeze $2.2bn in grants and $60m in multi-year contract value to Harvard, hours after Alan Garber, the university president, said Harvard would not accept a series of demands made by the Trump administration. The demands included appointing a White House-approved external body to 'to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity', and that Harvard 'immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs'.
Garber said the government's edicts 'represent direct governmental regulation' of the school's independence and constitutional rights.
'No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,' Garber wrote in an open letter, which was hailed by the left and by college professors concerned at the capitulation of other schools.
Yet, as evidenced by Trump's emotional post on Wednesday, the government's assault on universities is unlikely to stop anytime soon, particularly if he is to emulate the kind of strongman leaders, such as the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, he has praised in the past.
'[People in the Trump administration] have read their history, and they know that authoritarian regimes often target higher education as an independent sector and society, and aim to undermine it because of its role in creating an educated populace that could stand up to all forms of authoritarian rule,' Wolfson said.
'And so this is part of a standard playbook of authoritarianism: to attack and to attempt to control or destroy higher education.'
The move against universities has echoes of the efforts by the Wisconsin senator Joseph McCarthy in the middle of the 20th century to root out people he accused of being communists and Marxists. And like McCarthy, Trump's efforts – led by a group of loyalists including the White House deputy chief of staff and head of policy, Stephen Miller – go beyond just universities. Trump has targeted some of the biggest law firms in the US with executive orders, prompting many to cave and pledge hundreds of millions of dollars of pro bono work to causes backed by the Trump administration.
'The Trump administration is following the playbook of totalitarian dictatorships elsewhere in the world. It is trying to use the force of law to intimidate independent civic society organizations, so that opposition to its policies is impossible,' said Steven Pinker, a psychology professor at Harvard and co-chair of the university's Council on Academic Freedom.
'This new incarnation of the American right wing, with complete fealty to a single man, and an unprecedented attempt to disable civic society institutions like law firms and universities, is quite extraordinary.'
The Trump administration has framed its move on Harvard and other colleges as an effort to crackdown on antisemitism, following protests against Israel's war on Gaza, and as a move against alleged civil rights violations on campus. Few outside of the rightwing sphere see that as a good faith argument.
'As a Jewish faculty member, I'm sensitive to antisemitism on campus, and it does exist and it should be combated. But the claim that Harvard is a bastion of antisemitism is just wild hyperbole. Three of our last four presidents who've served longer than a year have been Jewish. The fourth was married to a Jewish professor,' Pinker said.
Harvard has found itself in the Trump administration's crosshairs because of its status as the best known of America's universities, one of the eight esteemed Ivy League schools. Thousands of influential figures across politics, media and business attended Harvard's grand campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts; many of those who didn't go to Harvard still tend to take an interest in its affairs.
'We've got between 4,000 and 5,000 higher education institutions in the US. The Ivys always make headlines. The major cultural commentators in this country are obsessed with the Ivys, and have been for a long time. These are things that sell papers, they get a lot of clicks and a lot of attention,' said Lauren Lassabe Shepherd, a historian of US colleges and universities and author of Resistance from the Right: Conservatives and the Campus Wars.
'The other thing, too, is what happens at your regional state public flagship university often follows from the trends that are set at the Ivys. Not only do they generate a lot of headlines, they are influential in that way.'
Just as Harvard's existence predates the founding of the US, rightwing antipathy towards universities has been brewing for a long time. When Ronald Reagan was running for governor of California in 1966, he used anger towards anti-Vietnam student protesters for political gain: one of his main campaign strands was a promise to 'clean up the mess at Berkeley' – the state's flagship university.
Reagan's tactics bear echoes of Trump's. Ray Colvig, UC Berkeley's chief public information officer at the time, told the university's news service years later that Reagan 'wanted to establish a special process to select faculty in several disciplines'.
'In other words, he wanted to set a political standard for appointing faculty members. This idea was widely opposed, and it went away,' Colvig said.
Reagan wasn't the first to take on the universities. Shepherd said efforts to set up rival, conservative universities, date back to the 1920s, while McCarthy's war on higher education came later. Ellen Schrecker, a historian and author of No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities, wrote in the Nation recently that the Trump administration's efforts were 'worse than McCarthy', and Shepherd said Trump's attacks were 'much more accelerated' than the communist-paranoid senator's tactics.
'McCarthyism, in the 1940s and 50s, the idea was to identify specific professors, hardly ever students, always faculty, and have them fired. Today, we're seeing much worse than that. These are attacks on entire programs and departments. So entire departments like Black studies or DEI initiatives. It's also not just relegated to the professors. We're seeing students with their visas revoked being literally plucked off the streets,' Shepherd said.
Trump hasn't just targeted Harvard. Columbia caved to a series of demands from the Trump administration in March, as a pre-condition for restoring $400m in federal funding, while the White House has announced funding freezes to other schools including Brown, Northwestern, Princeton and Cornell.
Harvard taking a stand is one of the first signs of a fight back – even if it came after it was reported in March that the leaders of the university's center for Middle Eastern studies were forced out, a move seen by critics as an attempt to appease Trump – and academics and others hope it could begin a resistance. It is likely to require a group effort to avoid the right wing's goal for higher education in the US: universities that are in effect government-controlled, and where freedom of speech and thought is restricted.
'The right don't want students to hear about the legacy to slavery. They don't want them to hear about structural inequalities,' Shepherd said.
'They don't want to hear why billionaires are bad. They don't want to hear, from the sciences, about climate change. They want a nice, friendly experience where the most students ever get to debate is the differences in Aristotle and Plato.
'They don't want the actual debates that we see unfolding on campuses today.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Canadian cities keep revoking MAGA singer's performance permits
Cities across Canada have canceled tour performances from Sean Feucht, a right-wing Christian musician with ties to the Trump administration and the Republican Party. The cancellations include Quebec City, where the city said it pulled a contract for Feucht's planned free Friday show at the ExpoCité venue due to 'new elements.' "The presence of a controversial artist was not mentioned in the contract between ExpoCité and the promoter of the concert scheduled to take place on its site this Friday," the city said in a statement. Performances have also been canceled in Halifax, Charlottetown, and Moncton. All told, six performances have been canceled, according to the National Post, as Feucht has faced criticism from local groups and certain elected leaders. "The city should not make its spaces available to propaganda groups that insult our communities and seek to divide us on the basis of our identities," municipal official Jackie Smith from the Transition Quebec party said in a statement to the CBC. "We don't want this hatred in our neighbourhoods." Other localities, as well as Parks Canada, which canceled a planned show at the York Redoubt historic site, cited safety concerns about Feucht. On social media, Feucht said he was being persecuted for his religious and political views. 'Here's the hard truth: If I had shown up with purple hair and a dress, claiming to be a woman, the government wouldn't have said a word,' he wrote on X. 'But to publicly profess deeply held Christian beliefs is to be labeled an extremist—and to have a free worship event classified as a public safety risk.' Over the years, Feucht has flouted Covid guidelines, appeared at the Trump White House, referred to abortion as the 'devil's sacrifice,' and compared discussion of sexual identity in schools to sexual indoctrination and grooming. The musician and religious leader, who has restaged planned concerts in fields and alternative venues amid the cancellations, also said he was getting death threats against his family and said the opposition to his tour was part of the ' devil's same playbook' that saw worship services limited during the Covid pandemic. Feucht gained national notoriety in 2020 by leading combination worship service-protest concerts around the country at a time when large gatherings, including religious ones, were prohibited under many local public health regimes. Since then, the musician has become well-acquainted with prominent figures on the right, appearing this year to perform at the White House, as well as hobnobbing with the likes of Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Last month, Feucht, who has said he wants 'God in control of government,' was accused by former associates of financial mismanagement and exploiting staff across his variety of nonprofits and ministries, while he and his organizations snapped up millions of dollars in property. Feucht called the allegations ' a complete sham ' and said they came from 'embittered former volunteers who have been attacking the ministry for over a decade.'


The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Migrant deported to notorious El Salvador prison demands $1.3M from Trump administration after savage beatings, vile conditions and 24-hour confinement
Federal agents arrested Neiyerver Adrian Leon Rengel outside his apartment in Texas on his 27th birthday. Two days later, he was deported to a brutal prison in El Salvador, where he was packed in a jail cell with more than a dozen other Venezuelan men for up to 24 hours a day, for four months. Inside El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center, Rengel 'endured physical, verbal and psychological abuse,' including routine beatings from guards using their fists and batons, according to his complaint to the Department of Homeland Security Thursday. The details of Rengel's removal from the United States, and his time spent in CECOT, constitute the first legal action against Donald Trump's administration in the wake of a prisoner swap that the release of 250 Venezuelans from the notorious Salvadoran jail. Rengel's administrative claim seeks $1.3 million in damages, alleging wrongful detention and personal injury. The claim is the first step towards a lawsuit against the administration, which has faced an avalanche of legal challenges related to the summary removal of dozens of immigrants to a foreign prison where they faced the prospect of indefinite detention. 'You don't have to be a constitutional scholar for the Rengel case to set off alarms,' according to Norm Eisen, executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, which filed the claim on Rengel's behalf. 'Detaining and disappearing someone without cause or access to legal recourse is illegal and abhorrent,' he added. 'This kind of conduct may be straight out of the Trump playbook on immigration, but it has nothing to do with the American Constitution or our values.' The Independent has contacted the Department of Homeland Security for comment. Rengel came to the U.S. in 2023 by appointment through the CBP One app, a Joe Biden-era program that allowed immigrants to schedule with immigration officers before arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border. He also applied for temporary protected status, with a pending immigration court date in 2028, according to his attorneys. After his arrest, agents falsely claimed his tattoos were affiliated with Venezuelan street gang Tren de Aragua, which he has adamantly denied, according to the complaint. He was not allowed to challenge that 'flimsy pretext for removal' under Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, which labels Venezuelan 'members' of Tren de Aragua 'alien enemies' who can be summarily deported. Federal authorities have wide discretion to determine membership, largely by pointing to their tattoos. Inside CECOT, Rengel was routinely beaten, and on one occasion, taken to an area of the prison without cameras where guards 'viciously' attacked him, according to his complaint. Rengel was also 'forced to witness guards severely beating' other detainees, the complaint says. CECOT guards 'would turn out the light, take a detainee out of the cell, and attack them outside their cell in front of Rengel and his cellmates,' according to the complaint. Rengel was imprisoned with 18 or 19 other Venezuelans inside a cell no larger than 10-by-10 feet, and the men were rarely allowed to leave, staying inside the cell up to 24 hours a day, the complaint says. They shared two toilets in the cell without any privacy, and the cell was only cleaned once a week, according to Rengel. The Red Cross visited the facility on June 12, and Rengel spoke with the group for 30 minutes — his only contact with the outside world during his imprisonment, according to the complaint. On July 18, following trilateral negotiations with the U.S. and Salvadoran and Venezuelan governments, Rengel and more than 250 other Venezuelans jailed inside the facility were returned to their home country. Rengel has since returned to his mother's home in Municipio Baruta, Venezuela, and is 'terrified to return to the United States given the horrendous treatment he endured,' according to his complaint. Court orders in several cases urged administration officials to 'facilitate' the return of immigrants wrongfully deported to CECOT, and the top judge in Washington, D.C., has threatened officials with contempt after defying his orders to turn the planes around in the first place. Officials claimed for months that the United States no longer has jurisdiction over deportees that were locked up in El Salvador. But authorities in that country recently told the United Nations that the 'legal responsibility for these people lie exclusively' with the U.S. government. Attorneys for Rengel argue that his release — along with the release of dozens of other Venezuelan detainees — demonstrate that the U.S. government has always had the ability to secure their release. 'Mr. Rengel's loved ones were cut off from contact, left with no answers, and forced to endure months of fear, confusion, and heartbreak," according to Juan Proaño, president of Latino civil rights organization LULAC, which is representing Rengel. 'While no amount of money will ever be able to make up for the deeply traumatic wounds Mr. Rengel now bears, our government has the responsibility to ensure he and his family have the resources they need as they cope,' Proaño said.


Daily Mail
23 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Grim new Social Security outlook revealed as checks set to shrink by huge sums
Social Security's retirement fund is set to run short in just seven years — which could end up slashing benefits for millions of Americans by thousands of dollars a year. According to latest projections, retirees could face automatic 24 percent benefit cuts as early as the end of 2032. This means a couple who both worked would receive $18,100 less each year if they retire at the start of 2033. The new forecast from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), released Thursday, moves up the insolvency date for both Social Security and Medicare trust funds. A projection just last month had funds lasting until 2033, but that has already been revised. A major factor is the impact of President Donald Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill ', which experts warned would speed up the use of funds. Social Security relies on its trust fund to provide monthly benefit checks to around 70 million Americans. Once the reserves are exhausted, federal law requires that benefits be cut to match incoming revenues. This means payments will continue, but at reduced levels. The cuts would also grow over time as scheduled benefits continue to outpace dedicated revenues, the CRFB said. By 2099, the size of the benefit cut would grow to well over 30 percent, the nonpartisan committee said. Depending on a couple's age, marital status and work history, the actual size of the benefit cut would vary. For example, the average single-earner couple would face a $13,600 cut in late 2032, while a dual-earner low-income couple would face an $11,000 annual cut. High-income couples could see a cut of closer to $24,000. While the absolute size of the cut would be smaller for a typical low-income couple than for a high-income couple, it would represent a larger share of their income and their past earnings, the CRFB said. The depletion of Social Security's trust funds would also be compounded by the insolvency of a Medicare trust fund. The hospital insurance trust fund, which is also known as Part A of Medicare, finances health care services related to hospital stays and skilled nursing facilities for eligible beneficiaries, which is mostly those aged 65 and over. This fund is also projected to be exhausted in late 2032, cutting payments by 11 percent. The forecast predicts that a dual-earning couple who retire at the start of 2033 would receive $18,100 less a year in vital benefits The latest CRFB estimates of potential benefit cuts are somewhat larger than those put forward in the most recent Trustees' report from June. The committee blamed changes brought in by the Trump administration's 'Big, Beautiful Bill.' Despite facing bipartisan criticism, the bill was signed into law earlier this month. It extends most of the tax cuts Trump signed into law in 2017, including slashing rates on estates and for corporations. Deductions for state and local taxes, as well as business owners, are included. The CRFB said the tax rate cuts and the increase in the senior standard deduction from the bill would reduce Social Security's revenue from the income taxation of benefits, increasing the required cut by about a percentage point upon insolvency. It warned if the senior standard deduction and other temporary measures are made permanent, the benefit cut would grow larger, hurting millions of Americans. 'Policymakers pledging not to touch Social Security are implicitly endorsing these deep benefit cuts for 62 million retirees in 2032 and beyond,' the committee added. 'It is time for policymakers to tell the truth about the program's finances and to pursue trust fund solutions to head off insolvency and improve the program for current and future generations.'