The escalating battle between President Donald Trump and Harvard University is a high-stakes cultural and political standoff that echoes far beyond higher education. Public deference toward the scholarly excellence that Harvard represents has been eroded by a backlash against elite universities now seen by many voters as bastions of political liberalism. This growing resentment, mostly on the political right, has fueled an assault on their exalted status. It’s a battle that has been years in the making: Conservatives have long seethed at the ideological tilt on most college campuses and accused administrators of stifling free speech. But it took the reelection of Donald Trump, a businessman who started his own failed eponymous university and is finely attuned to status and slights, to light the fuse. New actions this week expand what amounts to a multi-pronged assault on elite universities. On Wednesday, the Trump Department of Education asked for a review of Columbia University’s accreditation status, citing antisemitism on its campus. That evening, President Trump issued a proclamation suspending visas for new foreign students at Harvard for national security reasons. Asked recently in the Oval Office about the dispute with Harvard, Mr. Trump blamed the university for being defiant. “Harvard has got to behave themselves,” he said. “Harvard is treating our country with great disrespect, and all they’re doing is getting in deeper and deeper and deeper. They’ve got to behave themselves.” The Trump administration has already slashed federal funding of scientific and medical research, of which Harvard is a major recipient. In February it began investigating 10 universities – all in Democrat-run states – accused of failing to protect Jewish students during a wave of campus protests over Israel’s war in Gaza following the Oct. 7, 2023 attack by Hamas. Columbia bowed under pressure; other universities sought to reach agreements to unlock federal funds. But Harvard balked at the maximalist demands of the White House. Now it finds itself squeezed from all sides. In addition to the billions of dollars in frozen grants and federal contracts, and the administration’s repeated efforts to block the enrollment of international students – Wednesday’s proclamation came after an earlier effort was halted by a federal judge – Mr. Trump has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status, which would impact donations. The spending bill passed recently by Republicans in the House of Representatives would hike the 1.4% tax on Harvard’s $53 billion endowment to 21%, adding to the financial and political pressure on the university. “If you want to make an example and to demonstrate your power, how better to do it than to go after the university that’s at the top of the heap?” asks Brian Rosenberg, a former president of Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, who now teaches at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education. “It sends a chilling message.” A dispute years in the making As far back as 1951, when William F. Buckley, Jr. penned his book “God and Man at Yale,” colleges were catching conservative criticism for diverging from traditional values. But the relationship between GOP leaders and elite universities grew far more hostile during the past decade, as universities became more explicitly political in their messaging – often in direct opposition to Mr. Trump and his movement. In 2019, Mr. Trump signed an executive order that sought to condition federal grants and other funding for colleges and universities on their protection of free speech (President Biden partly rescinded the directive in 2023). In a 2021 speech, JD Vance called universities “the enemy.” Notably, Mr. Trump, Vice President Vance, and Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, all graduated from Ivy League schools. GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik, whose aggressive questioning of university presidents at a 2023 congressional hearing on antisemitism helped launch the current battle, is a Harvard grad. Polling suggests the public has mixed views of the current fight. In a recent AP/NORC poll, 56% of U.S. adults said they disapprove of Mr. Trump’s handling of college issues; among Republicans, however, 83% expressed approval. At the same time, the public perception of universities overall has grown far more negative, with the percentage of Americans saying they have “a great deal of confidence” in higher education falling from nearly 60% in 2015 to just 36% in 2024, according to Gallup. This shift reflects rising concerns about the affordability and efficacy of a college education as well as the political climate on campuses. Now this battle threatens to permanently weaken institutions once revered as crown jewels in an American economy that runs on talent and advanced research. Harvard has frozen hiring, cut spending, and hunkered down for what both sides agree could be a drawn-out dispute. Its vaunted research capabilities, which attract global talent and spin off commercial ventures, are most at risk, particularly if overseas researchers fear being denied visas. No one thinks the nation’s oldest university – founded in 1636 and named after a Puritan minister who was its first major donor – will go out of business. But its ambitions, prestige, and influence could start to diminish, even as classes of graduates continue to don gowns in Harvard Yard. That prospect would delight cultural warriors in Mr. Trump’s policy circles who want to leverage government power over liberal-coded institutions and bring them to heel. “The universities seem all powerful and they have acted as if they were all powerful, and we’re finally revealing that we can hit that where it hurts,” Christopher Rufo, a right-wing education activist, told The New York Times in April. Initial efforts to calm the waters Harvard President Alan Garber took office amid a firestorm after the resignation of Claudine Gay, who had been taken to task in the fall of 2023 by Republicans in Congress over hate speech at Gaza protests and then accused of plagiarism. Initially, Dr. Garber had worked to repair relations in Washington. Harvard hired Republican lobbyists and sought to cooperate with Mr. Trump’s antisemitism taskforce. Harvard removed faculty members from its Center for Middle Eastern Studies, which was enmeshed in controversy, and indicated an openness to making other reforms. Dr. Garber revised the university’s definition of antisemitism and compiled and published evidence of harassment of both Jews and Muslims on campus. Analysts say Harvard sought to get ahead of a formal Title VI investigation under the Civil Rights Act by telegraphing that it had erred and would make amends while defending its academic freedom and autonomy. That strategy unraveled in April after the Trump administration sent a letter with an expansive list of demands for federal oversight of the university’s hiring, admissions, student discipline, and other core functions. It also demanded greater “viewpoint diversity” – more conservatives on campus – and the de-recognition of pro-Palestinian student groups. Backed by Harvard’s governing body, Dr. Garber rebutted the demands as government interference that Harvard could not accept. After the White House retaliated by pulling $2.2 billion in federal funding, the university sued. The New York Times later reported that the April 11 letter of demands may have been sent in error by the White House. Dr. Garber told the Harvard Crimson that the university faced “a very stark situation” under the demands. “We saw ourselves as being given the choice of standing up for fundamental rights of universities, including First Amendment rights, or letting this demand go by,” he said. “When you think of it in those terms, there really was no choice.” As The Monitor recently reported, the university has been buoyed by public support for its stance, including from other universities and from Harvard alumni who include influential and deep-pocketed allies. Some Harvard professors have pledged to donate part of their salary to the university; Dr. Garber has done the same. “Everyone is looking at austerity,” says a staffer at Harvard Law School who didn’t want to be named because of the sensitivity of the dispute. At this year’s graduations, parents of students expressed far more pride than in past years in being connected to the school, the staffer says. “The message is that “we know that you’re in the trenches and we support you.’” Harvard has faced many crises in its history, including the 1950s “Red scare” and campus uproar over the Vietnam War, says William Kirby, a Harvard historian and a former dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. He says this crisis ranks among them, since it pits the university against an administration pressing a “full-throated attack” with unreasonable and unlawful demands. “There’s absolutely no good faith on the part of those in the government pursuing this vendetta,” he says.”They’re asking for things that would be impossible, I think, for any university to do and to maintain any semblance of its own values.” A symbolic target Harvard’s defenders and critics agree on one thing: It’s a big target. And if it can’t stand up to the Trump administration, given its wealth and reach, then other universities are even less likely to prevail. In Chinese, this is known as “killing the chicken to scare the monkey,” notes Professor Kirby, who teaches China studies as well as business administration. Prosecutorial resources “are finite,” says Jay Greene, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Making an example of “a high-profile target” helps “with enforcement of all the others. It’s an efficient use of resources to correct wrongdoing.” Harvard’s resources are also finite. It became dependent on federal grants without hedging against the risk of a political backlash as it adopted increasingly liberal messaging, argues Dr. Greene, a former professor of education policy at the University of Arkansas. “This isn’t really about autonomy. It’s not really about competing visions of civil rights. It’s really a fight over [political] interests,” he says. He supports the Trump administration’s demands of Harvard with one exception: viewpoint diversity. That goal is correct and long overdue, says Dr. Greene, but it isn’t a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Still, he adds, it would be “educationally good practice and politically smart for Harvard to diversify its faculty and student body” by welcoming more conservatives. Mr. Trump isn’t the first president to use civil rights law and the federal funding spigot to strong-arm universities. President Barack Obama used Title IX to change how universities treated students accused of sexual misconduct. That directive didn’t impinge, however, on academic freedoms such as faculty hiring, admissions, and curriculums. Critics of Harvard say its defense of academic freedom is undermined by its own failure to uphold free speech and a pervasive culture of self-censorship among students. Surveys show that most students and faculty at Harvard identify as left or center-left. The university was ranked dead last in a 2025 survey measuring free speech on college campuses by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Academics who teach contentious topics at Harvard say that, properly managed, classroom debate flows freely, away from the spotlight of public protests and social-media outrages. “We have no shortage of differences of opinion. This is a place of free and open inquiry,” says Professor Kirby, who has led discussions on China-Taiwan relations, among other topics. “They know they can’t resist forever” Mr. Trump recently suggested taking $3 billion from “a very antisemitic Harvard” and redistributing the money to vocational and technical schools. While that suggestion is at odds with the purpose behind scientific and other research grants, research that trade schools can’t replicate, analysts say such attacks resonate with Mr. Trump’s base that distrusts higher education. A more plausible scenario is that federal dollars will flow instead to institutions that aren’t at odds with the administration, and that Harvard’s research talent will follow suit. The university could tap wealthy donors to make up shortfalls for a while, but that is a stopgap at best. It also leaves Harvard open to other pressure points, including visa approvals for international students and scholars. “The difficulties that can be made for Harvard are more than what Harvard can manage. On some level I think they know that they can’t resist forever,” says Dr. Greene. Professor Rosenberg agrees. “Even for an institution with this kind of wealth and reputation, this is going to be extremely difficult to navigate. I think if there were a reasonable exit ramp, Harvard would take a serious look at it.” Harvard could opt to scale down its research labs, shrink its workforce, and focus more on undergraduate teaching and midcareer programs that generate income. But that would put it at a competitive disadvantage to peer institutions at home and abroad. The research talent that powers Harvard’s long line of Nobel prizewinners and other markers of excellence may also look outside the U.S. At some point, some students who might have chosen Harvard in the past may think about going elsewhere. While the prestige of elite schools like Columbia and Harvard remains strong, the perception that they are awash in political activism has also filtered down, says Elizabeth Doe Stone, president of Top Tier Admissions, a college-prep consultancy. “Families that are not even conservative, but are more politically moderate, are thinking about their child’s education and wanting it to be focused on having a typical college experience and not having the distractions of the political climate.” For now, though, Harvard is still Harvard. “The brand is incredibly resilient. What we’ll find out in this next year is just how resilient,” she says.