Can donors fill the major budget holes that colleges face under Trump?
Harvard University saw a surge in donations in the spring after its president pushed back against the Trump administration PHOTO: SOPHIE PARK/NYTIMES
WASHINGTON - The T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard University has not been disguising its plight.
'With Harvard's federal funding frozen, we are relying on philanthropy to power our research and support our educational programs,' the school's donation website says. 'Your ongoing engagement is vital to keeping our mission on track.'
The Trump administration's decision to block billions of dollars in research money to certain colleges is forcing administrators and their fundraising teams to scrounge for cash. As schools across the country contemplate layoffs, lab shutdowns and other drastic steps, they are weighing how much the gaps can be plugged by private philanthropy – and how pointedly political their pleas for donations ought to be.
A handful are wagering that the financial rewards of trying to leverage donors' concerns about the federal cuts will outweigh the risk of antagonising the White House.
In an April 30 note to alumni, Brown University President Christina H. Paxson said about three dozen of its grants and contracts had been cancelled, and that the government had stopped funding many research grants.
She said news reports stated that the Trump administration had threatened an additional US$510 million (S$650.5 million) in grants and contracts to the university.
The moves, she wrote, represented 'a significant threat to Brown's financial sustainability'.
She urged alumni to lobby lawmakers about the issue and added links for making donations to the university, including to support research whose federal funding was cancelled or delayed. (Brown said data was not yet available for release about whether giving had increased as a result.)
Many other institutions have opted for more caution.
Mr Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education and a former leader of Occidental College, suggested that some schools may be worried about turning off right-leaning donors who may agree with President Donald Trump's opinion that academia has tilted too far to the left.
Some schools would like to emphasise the political attacks in their fundraising appeals, Mitchell said, 'but their donor base is at least purple, if not red, and it's tough for them to make a really anti-Trump statement and keep their donor base.'
A White House spokesperson, Mr Harrison Fields, said colleges and universities should address their financial problems by tightening their belts.
'If these higher education institutions were serious about lowering costs,' he said in an emailed statement, 'they would cut the bloated salaries of their faculty and stop wasting money on useless programs that do little to advance education.'
Universities have been grappling for months with sudden losses of research funding that cumulatively threaten thousands of jobs and an array of carefully planned projects. Relationships with donors can be fickle and fleeting, and many of the wealthiest donors have complex financial pictures with overlapping interests.
And while universities collectively pull in billions of dollars in gifts each year, some of their causes are easier sells than others.
Student financial aid, for instance, is a reliable attraction for donors. Scientific research, on the other hand, is a notoriously tricky target in fundraising efforts, though some of the biggest gifts are tied to the sciences.
Even if appeals to bolster threatened research could raise millions of dollars, it might not be enough to replace the hundreds of millions or even billions that colleges and universities stand to lose in the federal cuts.
Harvard, for example, said that in its 2024 fiscal year, it received about US$528 million in current-use gifts. In that same period, the university received about US$687 million from the federal government for research.
Harvard received a surge in donations this spring after its president wrote a scathing letter to the Trump administration, according to the university's student newspaper, The Crimson. The university did not provide data on donations for this article.
Even so, private fundraising by colleges and universities seems unlikely to be enough to fill the void. 'I think we can be sure that the amount of money would not come close to replacing what has been suspended,' said Mr Lee C. Bollinger, who has served as president of Columbia University and the University of Michigan. 'You're not going to make that up with donations.'
One task for college leaders is to discern how much they should emphasise politics in their appeals, whether in public solicitations for money or private meetings with their biggest givers.
Referring to the Trump administration's funding cuts, Mr Bollinger said, 'I think universities, broadly speaking, have been very clear in saying this is an overreach and an assault and intrudes into areas of academic decision-making and is part of a broader effort to break down the norms.'
Still, he added, 'I don't need to go in and talk to a donor and make the case that we're up against authoritarianism and we really need your help. I think it can be much more delicately handled than that.'
One looming question for higher education is whether this burst of government hostility, however long it lasts, will force a wholesale rethinking of how to fund universities. Mr Bollinger has found himself wondering whether institutions should routinely designate a portion of the contributions they take in as 'a fund to support freedom of the university when it's under assault'.
Such a strategy, he conceded, would have limits.
'Over time, you could build up a substantial reserve – a rainy-day fund, but for these kinds of assaults,' he said. 'But it would only get you through a period of time.'
Trump administration officials, among others, have urged universities with multibillion-dollar endowments to tap them to replace lost federal money.
But there are often restrictions on how a university may use its endowment money. In many instances, donors have attached conditions to their contributions, specifying that the money go toward a specific discipline or department. And now a Republican-backed bill moving through Congress may increase the taxes that universities pay on their endowments. NYTIMES
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

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

Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Trump says not offering Iran ‘anything', nor speaking to them
US President Donald Trump said he was not offering Iran anything nor talking to it. PHOTO: REUTERS Trump says not offering Iran 'anything', nor speaking to them WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump said on June 30 he was not offering Iran anything nor talking to it 'since we totally obliterated' the country's nuclear facilities. 'I am not offering Iran ANYTHING, unlike Obama,' Mr Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. 'Nor am I even talking to them since we totally OBLITERATED their Nuclear Facilities.' The statement comes as Iran's deputy foreign minister told the BBC that talks between Washington and Tehran cannot resume unless the US rules out further strikes on Iran. Mr Majid Takht-Ravanchi told the British broadcaster that the US had signalled it wants to return to the negotiating table, a week after it struck three Iranian nuclear facilities. 'We have not agreed to any date, we have not agreed to the modality,' said Mr Takht-Ravanchi. 'Right now we are seeking an answer to this question. Are we going to see a repetition of an act of aggression while we are engaging in dialogue?' The US needs to be 'quite clear on this very important question', he said. The two countries were in talks over Tehran's nuclear programme when Israel hit Iranian nuclear sites and military infrastructure in June , with the US joining by bombing three nuclear sites – Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan – on June 21. The deputy minister revealed to the BBC that the US had signalled it did 'not want to engage in regime change' by targeting Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Mr Takht-Ravanchi also said Iran should still be allowed to enrich uranium. 'The level of that can be discussed, the capacity can be discussed, but to say that you should not have enrichment, you should have zero enrichment, and if you do not agree, we will bomb you, that is the law of the jungle,' he said. Israel claims that Iran's nuclear programme is close to producing a bomb, whereas Tehran says it is for peaceful purposes. It is not clear yet how much damage the strikes inflicted on Iran's nuclear facilities, which Mr Trump has said were 'totally obliterated'. UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said Iran would probably be able to begin to produce enriched uranium 'in a matter of months'. Mr Takht-Ravanchi said he did not know how long it would take. Under a 2015 deal, Iran was allowed to enrich uranium below 3.67 per cent purity for fuel for commercial nuclear power plants. Mr Trump abandoned the agreement in 2018 and Iran responded by producing uranium enriched to 60 percent – above levels for civilian usage but still below weapons grade. That material, if further refined, would theoretically be sufficient to produce more than nine nuclear bombs. AFP Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Business Times
2 hours ago
- Business Times
Trump says TikTok buyer group found, needs China nod
[WASHINGTON] President Donald Trump said he has identified a buyer for the US operations of TikTok, the social media app owned by Chinese company ByteDance, without naming the winning bidder. Completing a sale would be contingent on Beijing and President Xi Jinping's agreement, Trump added in a pre-taped interview on Fox New's Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo. ByteDance and the Chinese government have long opposed such a deal. 'We have a buyer for TikTok, by the way. I think I'll need probably China approval and I think President Xi will probably do it,' the US president said. 'It's a group of very wealthy people.' US and Chinese officials affirmed at the end of last week that they've agreed a trade framework, moving towards settling trade hostilities following talks in London earlier in June. ByteDance's US future has hung in the balance for years, starting with the first Trump administration putting pressure on the Beijing company to sell the asset to an American entity. A January deadline for ByteDance to find a local buyer was pushed back twice by Trump, who this month extended it again by a further 90 days from Jun 19. The US Congress passed a law last year requiring the divestiture, citing national security concerns. Under the law, the president was allowed to invoke one extension. But Trump has mused that TikTok in the US could be worth as much as one trillion US dollars and repeatedly shown a willingness to broker a deal. Movement on a sale had largely stalled as US-China trade ties frayed due to a larger clash over tariff negotiations. Before Trump announced widespread tariffs in April, a deal was said to be close, advanced by a consortium of US investors including Oracle, Blackstone and venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. The White House did not respond to a request for more details on Trump's latest remarks. When asked about the deal mentioned by Trump, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning told reporters at a regular press briefing in Beijing on Monday (Jun 30) that on TikTok-related issues, China 'has reiterated its principled position,' saying she had nothing further to add. Representatives from ByteDance and TikTok did not respond to requests for comment. BLOOMBERG


AsiaOne
3 hours ago
- AsiaOne
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship, World News
WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship — a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday (June 27), while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasised the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A host of policies That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government — many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on US soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. States challenge directive The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognises, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognised that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm — which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal manoeuvring in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as US citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. [[nid:681341]]