Settlement talks between the Trump administration and Harvard University over restoring research funding have stalled, according to a report by The New York Times. The administration has not issued new demands, and internal divisions have slowed progress. Harvard opposes an independent monitor proposed by some Trump advisors, while the administration seeks significant concessions.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in funding to Harvard, threatening to revoke its tax-exempt status due to alleged failures in addressing antisemitism on campus. The Department of Education’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism cut $450 million in grants, citing repeated failures by Harvard to confront antisemitic harassment. Harvard challenged the freeze in court, with a judge criticizing the administration for weaponizing antisemitism as a pretext for an ideological attack on the university.
Despite nearly reaching a $500 million settlement agreement last month, the Trump administration continues to push for further concessions. President Trump instructed Education Secretary Linda McMahon that Harvard should pay nothing less than $500 million, reflecting the administration’s stance. The slowdown in negotiations also reflects the administration’s adjustment to the departure of May Mailman, a key strategist involved in pressuring Ivy League institutions. Some officials are concerned that any response might overshadow the $500 million deal, which remains a top priority for the president.
Harvard has long resisted the administration’s demands, arguing that the current framework is too favorable to the university. The university has not only rejected the idea of an independent monitor but also criticized the administration’s approach as an overreach. Harvard’s legal team has been working to ensure that the negotiation process does not damage the university’s reputation or financial stability, which has led to delays in reaching a final agreement.
The administration’s internal divide over the issue reflects broader tensions within the Trump team. Some aides are eager to secure a political victory by announcing a deal, while others believe that the administration’s current position is too lenient. This division has created uncertainty in the negotiation process, with some officials concerned that any agreement might be seen as a concession to Harvard rather than a strategic move to address the underlying issues.
The situation has significant financial implications for Harvard, as the $2.2 billion freeze has already had a substantial impact on its operations. While the university has taken steps to mitigate the damage, the prolonged negotiations could lead to further financial challenges in the short term. Harvard’s focus on maintaining its financial stability has made it resistant to additional demands from the administration, further complicating the settlement process.
The administration’s insistence on a $500 million payment highlights its determination to extract significant concessions from Harvard. However, the university’s resistance to these demands has created a stalemate that could persist for months or even years. The outcome of these negotiations will have far-reaching consequences not only for Harvard and the Trump administration but also for the broader landscape of federal funding and university governance in the United States.