The Trump administration escalated its ongoing feud with Harvard University on Tuesday, directing federal agencies to cancel contracts with the institution worth approximately $100 million. This move is the latest in a series of measures targeting the Ivy League school, following its resistance to sweeping demands from the White House.
A letter from the General Services Administration (GSA), which manages federal procurement and property, instructed agencies to identify and terminate contracts with Harvard where feasible. The GSA also urged agencies to explore alternate vendors for any critical services currently provided by the university. The New York Times was first to report on the directive.
This comes on the heels of a much larger financial blow: the administration had already withdrawn more than $2.6 billion in federal research funding from the university after Harvard sued the government in April. The lawsuit challenges the administration’s attempts to intervene in the school’s governance, leadership, and admissions policies.
RELATED STORIES
READ ALSO: Trump blasts Harvard for dragging feet on foreign student records
President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized Harvard, calling it a “hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism.” His administration’s latest actions, which include threats to strip the university of its tax-exempt status and halt its enrollment of foreign students, reflect a broader effort to penalize the institution.
Watch a recent episode of The BreakDown podcast below and subscribe to our channel PanaGenius TV for latest episodes.
According to a senior administration official, roughly 30 contracts across nine federal agencies are under review. These agreements include diverse services such as executive training for Department of Homeland Security personnel, health research on energy drinks, and graduate student research assistance. While some contracts deemed essential won’t be halted immediately, agencies are being asked to plan for a transition to non-Harvard providers.
The GSA directive applies solely to federal contracts, not to the remaining federal grants Harvard still receives.
Trump’s social media tirades over the weekend further fueled the confrontation. He floated the idea of cutting an additional $3 billion in grants and reallocating the funds to trade schools nationwide, although he did not specify which grants or how such a redistribution would work.
He also accused Harvard of concealing the identities of its international students, a claim he used to justify his push for stricter oversight. “We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country,” he posted online.
While Trump’s specific concerns were unclear since the government already has access to student visa and immigration data, the Department of Homeland Security has requested detailed records from Harvard. These include disciplinary reports and any documentation tied to “dangerous or violent activity” among its foreign enrollees.
Harvard contends that it complied with the request, but the agency found the response inadequate and moved to suspend the university’s ability to host international students. A federal judge in Boston has since blocked that action pending further litigation.
The ripple effects of the crackdown have drawn international concern. Japan’s Education Minister Toshiko Abe announced Tuesday that she is urging universities in Japan to identify ways to support Harvard students affected by U.S. sanctions, AP reported. The University of Tokyo is reportedly considering temporary placements for some of those students.
Other universities around the world have stepped in as well. Two institutions in Hong Kong, for example, have recently extended invitations to Harvard students caught in the crossfire.
On campus, the developments have sparked both anxiety and defiance. Harvard law student Carson Durdel voiced pride in the university’s decision to stand firm against political pressure.
“It’s the reason we are like a beacon for the rest of the world,” Durdel said. “I think that undermining those things, cutting those things is not only a bad short-term view but a horrendous long-term view.”
