Behind Harvard's Decision to Resist

Princeton's leadership, Wall Street support for a united front, and moves to change the narrative.

Yesterday, Harvard rejected Trump’s demands that it submit to an authoritarian take over by MAGA occupiers. MIT did the same. Stanford declared its solidarity. And Trump responded by claiming to freeze $2 billion in federal funds for Harvard. Former President Obama praised Harvard’s resistance and called Trump’s retaliation illegal.

I want to lift up three less visible things that are important for making sense of this rapidly evolving power struggle, and for thinking about how to defend universities from Trump’s authoritarian assault:

1. Princeton’s President Christopher Eisgruber is playing a vital role forging a united front by universities.

2. The university united front likely has the backing of at least some Wall Street elites who dominate Ivy League university boards.

3. Efforts to change the narrative are clearly underway. Harvard held its fire until Trump showed his had with demands that show this is all an authoritarian power play. And Harvard has shifted its presentation of self to center its lifesaving biomedical research and healthcare services.

At the end, I’ll note some factors for whether this united front can chip away at the accommodation Trump’s authoritarianism requires from the courts, Congress, other elites, public opinion and voters.

Princeton’s Leadership of a United Front

While Harvard got the headlines, a united front of elite universities signaled that they would resist over the last 48 hours. MIT also rejected Trump’s demands. Stanford’s President spoke out in support of Harvard. And Columbia appeared to reverse course on its capitulation.

For evidence that these are collective actions, listen to or read to the full Times interview Princeton’s President Eisgruber gave last week. After writing an Atlantic essay calling for universities to resist Trump, Eisgruber told the Times: “Presidents are talking to one another about this. I chair the Board for the Association of American Universities. Board meetings occur regularly. Now, there used to be twice a year. They’re considerably more often —Every one or two weeks or so.”

For those who don’t know, the Association of American Universities (AAU) is the association of the top 71 public and private research universities in the US. I did some research for AAU on financial aid and student debt a few years ago. Even through my little project, I could see that all the top university presidents knew and talked to each other. So Princeton’s Eisgruber appears to have played an important role in forging a united front.

But Harvard joining the fray is a big deal. And not just because it’s Harvard. Harvard’s exposure to federal funding cuts is much larger than even Princeton’s. This is in part because Harvard has a medical school and operates a large hospital system, contributing to its larger biomedical research portfolio.

The president of the larger federation of all US colleges and universities also gave an interview with the Times that points to a united front. The Times reported:

“Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, which represents many colleges and universities in Washington, said Harvard’s approach could embolden other campus leaders… He described Harvard’s response as ‘a road map for how institutions could oppose the administration on this incursion into institutional decision-making.’”

Wall Street Support for the United Front

The emerging united front of universities may also reflect broader elite resistance to the increasingly authoritarian and erratic behavior of the Trump administration. Harvard, Princeton, MIT, and Columbia are very unlikely to have mounted their resistance without the consent of the boards of trustees. And my book and recent Socio-Economic Review paper show that these boards are increasingly dominated by financiers.

In a Bluesky exchange with Beth Popp Berman in early February, I wondered out loud how financier’s university ties might influence elite support for Trump’s initial attacks on not only universities, but on democratic rule of law more broadly:

Elite university resistance to Trump signals that university ties may help to organize at least an important fraction of elites to oppose Trump’s authoritarian moves. Presidents of 4 of the Big 5 wealthiest universities – Harvard, MIT, Princeton, and Stanford – have all publicly spoken out. Yale has remained peculiarly silent as far as I can tell.

Harvard’s elite and conservatively connected legal team provides another potential indicator of elite activation against Trump’s authoritarianism. Harvard’s formal letter rejecting Trump’s demands was authored by lawyers William A. Burck and Robert K. Hur. The Times reports:

“Mr. Burck is also an outside ethics adviser to the Trump Organization and represented the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP in the deal it recently reached with the Trump administration… Mr. Hur, who worked in the Justice Department in Mr. Trump’s first term, was the special counsel who investigated President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s handling of classified documents and termed him ‘an elderly man with a poor memory.’”

Draw your own conclusions.

Changing the Narrative: Trump’s Authoritarian Attacks on Your Health and Personal Freedom

It appears some smart people may also be starting to help elite universities try to change the narrative around Trump’s attacks. First, Harvard held back until the Trump administration showed its hand in an April 11 letter demanding a full authoritarian takeover of Harvard by Trump designees.

Trump’s overreaching demands opened the door for Harvard to change the narrative. In an open letter rejecting Trump’s demands, Harvard President Allan Garber seized the opportunity. His letter begins:

“For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that… has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields… For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.”

Yep.

The letter ends:

“These ends will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate... Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s longstanding commitment to respect and protect it, has enabled universities to contribute in vital ways to a free society and to healthier, more prosperous lives for people everywhere. All of us share a stake in safeguarding that freedom.”

Indeed.

Josh Marshall also notes changes on Harvard’s website:

“The university’s webpage has been remade into essentially an advertisement for the societal/human impact of university research. The splash headline is “Research Powers Progress” followed by the tagline line: “Research at Harvard — from medicine to technology to education and business — touches countless lives, moving us closer to disease cures, next-generation technology, and a more secure future for millions of people.”

Thus far, my only idea for improving on this come from retired SEIU and healthcare reform strategist Dean Tipps: personify Trump’s authoritarianism by linking it to his widely despised friend Vladimir Putin’s playbook (more on this in a future post). And Harvard’s website and its open letter are not the vehicles for tying Trump’s attacks to Putin in the public mind.

Can a United Front Overcome Trump’s Power?

Ultimately, the success of Trump’s autocratic moves would require accommodation by the courts, Congress, other powerful elites, public opinion and voters. But even Trump’s 2-seat Republican House majority hangs by a thread. Will they continue to back Trump’s lawlessness if it threatens their mid-term election survival? This is an open question as Trump’s public approval is falling at a pace only matched historically by his own first presidency:

Trump has responded to Harvard’s resistance by doubling down, declaring he has frozen $2.2 billion in federal funds and suggesting he will also revoke Harvard’s tax status. I say claim because Trump, Musk, and their aids have been notoriously sloppy and loose with the facts about what they can do and have done.

At the same time, the Trump administration has spread itself thin by starting fights on every front at once. If nothing else, the resistance by Harvard and the Big 5 universities will reduce the administration’s limited bandwidth for punishing other universities one-by-one. Per my last post, Harvard and the Big 5 can afford to both 1) withstand Trump’s funding cuts for a period and 2) occupy the administration with costly litigation and public relations warfare. This may at least draw fire way from less elite and wealthy universities or other parts of civil society.

With Trump’s approval falling, does Harvard’s decision to fight portend that other elites, including Wall Street financiers and federal judges, will stand against authoritarian moves by Trump? Are Supreme Court justices really prepared to destroy their own alma matters in fealty to Trump? If not, Trump’s recent disregard for courts is ominous but hard to sustain if other elites and major institutions do not go along. Will Wall Street side with Trump even as he wreaks tariff chaos?

We shall see. But successful resistance can be contagious. And few organizations have more economic and social resources than Harvard to resist.