Broidy Capital Holdings

Harvard University’s legal battle with the Trump administration over more than $2 billion in frozen federal research funding has become even more consequential as other elite institutions — including Columbia, Brown and UCLA — have recently agreed to multimillion-dollar settlements to restore their own grants. Those agreements, which included financial penalties and policy reforms to address campus antisemitism, leave Harvard as the most prominent holdout.

Harvard’s President Alan Garber maintains that the administration’s sweeping actions — including the revocation of Harvard’s authority to enroll foreign students — violate the First Amendment and civil rights law, forcing the university to bend to the president’s political agenda. At stake are not only billions in research funding but also Harvard’s position as the lone Ivy League institution refusing to cut a deal, making this case a defining test of how far Washington can go in policing antisemitism and academic freedom on America’s campuses.

White House lawyers argue the university failed to curb pervasive antisemitism on campus and violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by displaying deliberate indifference to the harassment of Jewish and Israeli students, this marks a critical moment in a broader war over academic freedom, federal oversight and campus antisemitism. What began with the freezing of billions in federal funds and threats to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status is now a dramatic test-case: Should elite universities continue to receive public support while allowing hostile and discriminatory climates to fester on campus?

The Trump administration has cited Harvard’s failure to rein in antisemitic activity as a justification for its sweeping actions. Its aggressive posture has triggered sharp debate, but it is rooted in a sobering reality: President Garber commissioned a report whose findings documented a deeply troubling campus climate.

In the final report released in April, “On Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias,” an alarming environment of antisemitism and ideological coercion on Harvard’s campus is laid bare. By its own admission, Harvard has serially violated academic freedom in a host of ways including inviting and tolerating campus disruptors and shutting down discussion on Israel. In the wake of the horrific Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023 and Israel’s rightful retaliation in Gaza to wipe out the terrorist organization, the report found that Harvard “mainstreamed and normalized” what many Jewish and Israeli students experience as antisemitism, and tolerated “politicized instruction” in four Harvard schools “that effectively made a specific view on the Israel-Hamas conflict a litmus test for full classroom participation.”

It gets worse. The report highlights an outrageous “Pyramid of White Supremacy” graphic distributed to students in a required School of Education course. These materials appeared to equate those who oppose the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement with “coded genocide.” At the Harvard Divinity School, teachers “attribute to Jews two great sins” — the establishment of the State of Israel and “participation in White supremacy.” Harvard’s medical school allowed students to actively “discourage Zionist students from coming here.” These incidents are not simply isolated violations of etiquette or free speech norms; they amount to an environment of institutional bias.

Although President Garber issued an apology, it is glaringly apparent that his university does not intend to take any serious action to address the disgraceful status quo. Suggestions for reform include issuing an internal “set of rules and expectations” to manage class instruction, and that policies regarding campus protest and disruption be subjected to a “regular review.” The measures proposed seem underwhelming given the gravity of the report’s findings. The university has yet to announce significant disciplinary actions, curricular changes or accountability mechanisms.

The Trump administration’s freeze on federal funds and other threats to Harvard seem not only reasonable but entirely necessary in this context in order to maintain any semblance of academic freedom. Preserving academic freedom entails ensuring balance in the teaching of history and foreign affairs, and preventing the persecution of viewpoints and individuals based on race or national heritage. The notion that Harvard is entitled to an endless stream of billions in public funds despite its defiance of federal law and executive orders is hollow and ludicrous. The administration must continue to insist on compliance as a condition of funding.

But federal action alone will not address the rising tide of antisemitism on our campuses. We also need cultural change driven by private initiatives to instruct the next generation about the historic dangers of ideologies based on racial hatred. This is why I am proud to support and fundraise for the Auschwitz Research Center on Hate, Extremism, and Radicalization, or ARCHER at House 88, a new international hub of research, training, and policy advocacy to help fight extremism, antisemitism, and terrorism. ARCHER aims to expose and shut down the inciters of antisemitism, the recruiters to violence, the perpetrators of terrorism, and the networks that finance this activity.

This is not a war against Harvard; it is a war to save Harvard by requiring it to restore academic freedom and prohibiting it from indoctrinating the next generation of students against Israel, the Jewish people, and the Judeo-Christian values of western civilization. With its influence extending across continents and generations, Harvard must now decide what kind of example it wants to set for the next generation. That choice will determine whether the university emerges from this crisis renewed or diminished.

Elliott Broidy is a businessman and Republican political strategist.