Following Harvard University’s refusal to comply with the Trump administration’s demands regarding changes to its governance and operations, significant federal repercussions have ensued, with billions of dollars in funding hanging in the balance.

On April 11, federal officials from the General Services Administration and the Departments of Health and Human Services and Education issued a formal letter to Harvard, advocating for modifications to the university’s admissions, hiring, and governance practices. The requests were framed as necessary measures to address allegations of antisemitism and harassment linked to pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus in the previous spring.

The immediate aftermath of Harvard’s rejection saw the government freeze $2.2 billion in grants, alongside $60 million in federal contracts. Reports indicate that further punitive measures, amounting to an additional $1 billion in funding cuts, may be pursued. In response, Harvard has initiated legal action to challenge these funding freezes, deeming them “unlawful and beyond the government’s authority,” as asserted by University President Alan Garber.

Actions from Federal Agencies

Additional pressure from various federal agencies has compounded the situation. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem recently announced the cancellation of $2.7 million in grants to Harvard, labeling the institution as “unfit to be entrusted with taxpayer dollars.” Moreover, she threatened to revoke Harvard’s certification for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) unless the university provides comprehensive records by April 30 regarding its foreign student visa holders’ activities, which includes allegations of illegal behavior.

Moreover, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is also reportedly considering revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status—a move publicly supported by President Trump, who has taken to social media to propose that Harvard should face taxation as a political entity if it continues to support ideologies he condemns.

The Potential for Tax-Exempt Status Revocation

If the Trump administration pursues the revocation of Harvard’s tax-exempt status through appropriate legal channels, experts suggest that this could be a lengthy process involving thorough audits and potential court battles. Harvard would first receive a notice from the IRS detailing the reasons for intended revocation, which would prompt the university to respond and possibly appeal the decision.

Historically, such revocations have been rare yet possible. A notable case was that of Bob Jones University in 1970, where the IRS sought to strip the institution of its tax-exempt status due to racially discriminatory policies. After an extensive legal battle, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately sided with the IRS in 1983, emphasizing the government’s interest in eradicating racism.

Implications of SEVP Certification Stripping

Besides the potential for losing tax-exempt status, Harvard also faces threats regarding its SEVP certification, which would significantly impact its ability to host international students—a vital demographic that comprised over 27% of its student population for the 2024–25 academic year. An SEVP revocation process would involve notifying Harvard of non-compliance and allowing the institution a period to respond.

Legal experts note that while this threat demonstrates a strategic maneuver by the Trump administration to exert control, such actions are typically reserved for institutions engaged in severe compliance violations. Historical precedent indicates that revocations are rare and often involve serious infractions.

Conclusion

As the Trump administration continues to leverage federal power against Harvard University in its pursuit of compliance, the situation underscores a complex interplay between governmental authority and institutional autonomy. While Harvard remains resolute, the administration’s tactics raise critical questions about the future of federal funding and higher education governance.