President Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed great negotiator, has fumbled at the bargaining table once more.
He failed to intimidate India and China in trade talks, setting the stage for inflation to rise and for America’s greatest rivals to unite. His ingratiating groveling to Russian President Vladimir Putin was unable to bring about the ceasefire he promised—despite entering negotiations with the upper hand. Now, the “great negotiator” seems to have lost his cards again in his epic standoff with the world’s top-rated university.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]
Early in the summer, Judge Allison D. Burroughs rejected efforts by the Trump Administration to bar international students at Harvard. And on Wednesday, Harvard achieved another significant legal victory in the U.S. District Court when Judge Burroughs delivered one more decisive ruling in favor of the university, declaring that the $2.2 billion in federal research funding halted by the Trump Administration must be reinstated.
Judge Burroughs said President Trump’s decision to freeze the funds in April was driven by “power and political views,” and had little to do with combating antisemitism. While some believe Harvard should have done a better job protecting its Jewish students following Hamas’s attack on Israel in Oct. 2023, the school quickly moved to remedy the issue—well before Trump’s interventions. Notably, the Anti-Defamation League has improved the university’s grade from failing to passing in a short period of time.
In her more than 80-page ruling, Burroughs incisively identified the fundamental flaw in the administration’s position, stating: “We must fight against antisemitism, but we equally need to protect our rights, including our right to free speech, and neither goal should nor needs to be sacrificed on the altar of the other.”
The potential loss of federal funds threatens decades of critical research into everything from cancer therapies to Alzheimer’s treatments. Scientists, typically an apolitical bunch, have even gone so far as emphasizing their concerns about the long-term economic harm from President Trump’s war on higher education.
The financial pain would extend far beyond research, however. The Trump Administration proposes deep cuts to the NIH and NSF budgets and has enacted a slow-down in approval of international student visas. These actions, together with increases in the endowment tax and greater restrictions on Federal Financial Aid are damaging the partnership between the higher education sector and the federal government that has meant so much to U.S. competitiveness on the world stage. Indeed, colleges and universities across the nation have implemented hiring freezes, laid off staff, paused investments, and accepted fewer students, among other actions, in response to their possible budget gaps.
For an administration that claims to be concerned about maintaining technological and scientific supremacy against international rivals, the political warfare on higher education makes no sense. As widely documented, American universities serve as the strongest engines for research, innovation, and economic growth. The direct, and indirect, economic impact of U.S. universities on the national GDP is significant and undeniable. Sectors that American schools underpin such as digital commerce, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence account for nearly half of the U.S. GDP, drive almost all GDP growth, and total twice the size of federal government spending.
In the context of America’s trade deficit, universities are a major export for the U.S., and one of the few sectors in which we have a large trade surplus. Universities, particularly through the influx of international students, contribute significantly to the U.S. trade surplus, with international students contributing $44 billion to the economy and the trade surplus in education accounting for about 15% of total U.S. services trade surplus—comparable to the combined exports of soybeans, coal, and natural gas.
More than 80 current and former college and university presidents issued a joint statement drafted during a forum which we convened shortly after Harvard’s funds were frozen in April condemning Trump’s illegal maneuvers, which not only weaken the U.S.’s economic potential but “violate no less than the freedom of all colleges and universities to admit students, hire faculty, and govern themselves consistently with the law, the First Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and long-standing principles of academic freedom.” Inspired by the early movers, the American Association of Colleges and Universities then organized over 600 leaders of universities, colleges, community colleges, and higher education professional organizations to compose a letter denouncing the “undue government intrusion.”
Judge Burroughs’ decision confirms the legal validity of the arguments made by these leaders in higher education, as well as Harvard, at least temporarily. The Trump Administration has already said it will appeal the ruling.
Harvard has three options for how to proceed from here:
Fight and not settle
Harvard has an opportunity to lead the fight for freedom of expression and independence. The school has been the courageous standard bearer of academic freedom in the assault on higher education. Now, Harvard has another point of leverage against the president. And since complete capitulation is no longer justified and the appeasement of bullies never works, Harvard Trustees should forgo the reported ongoing settlement negotiations with the Trump Administration and see the legal battle through to the end.
The case would likely end up at the Supreme Court. Many would support the university taking a firm stance against the White House, given the government’s blatant overreach into their rights protected by the Constitution.
Of course, there is risk for Harvard in taking this path. Judge Burroughs’ decisions may be overturned on appeal, especially by the Supreme Court which has granted the Trump Administration several surprising wins early in his second term. Moreover, even if Harvard won in the highest court, the government could choose to punish the school in future grant-making decisions.
Renegotiate for better terms
Harvard could bring their increased leverage to the negotiating table, playing to Trump’s penchant for making a deal. For example, instead of the settlement dollars going towards a future Trump library or the preferred educational and vocational programs of the president, the university could dedicate the funds to a more desirable source, such as the cities of Boston and Cambridge.
Since Ivy League schools are non-profit institutions, they do not pay property taxes to municipal governments despite often occupying a sizable footprint in their respective cities. As good stewards, they make voluntary payments to the local government instead of taxes. Compared to Yale’s $135 million five-year agreement with New Haven, Harvard’s approximately $10 million annual payments to Cambridge and Boston combined are modest. Harvard could propose that its host cities receive a $500 million package over 10 to 20 years for public safety, housing, transportation, and infrastructure improvements.
Additionally, Harvard could secure an agreement that involves a government oversight program that is less invasive than Columbia’s. Of course, Harvard must also receive assurances that no further recrimination will follow and any disputes in the future about the deal will be resolved outside of the courts.
Settle according to Trump’s reduced demands
Harvard could take the legal win and quickly reach an agreement closer to the Columbia deal, albeit likely with a much higher settlement figure (and assuming the same assurances about no further recrimination and dispute resolution procedures are in place, as mentioned above). While Columbia had to concede to more government intrusion in university operations than it preferred, it did not have to admit to wrongdoing, re-secured its rescinded federal funding, and ensured eligibility for future federal grant programs.
The risk with this approach is that Harvard would live to fight another day, but become complicit in establishing a precedent that goes against the fundamental rights inherent in our democracy.
In any negotiation you need to, in the words of Kenny Rogers, “know when to hold ’em; Know when to fold ’em.”
Harvard has the cards. The key question is: How will they play them?