Harvard University’s president reportedly told faculty that no deal with President Donald Trump’s administration is imminent, despite intense pressure and reports of a potential $500 million settlement.
While other top universities have quietly capitulated to Trump—agreeing to broad federal demands, cutting checks, and issuing public apologies—Harvard appears to be resisting, even as it faces the most aggressive campaign yet from the Trump White House.
According to The Harvard Crimson, the university’s president, Alan Garber, told faculty this week that Harvard plans to resolve its standoff with Trump through the courts, not a backroom settlement. The student paper cited three unnamed faculty members familiar with the conversation. Boston public radio station WGBH reported something similar, with sources saying the talks have been “on-again, off-again.”
The standoff dates back to April, when Harvard refused to change its admissions, disciplinary, and governance policies in accordance with the Trump administration’s demands. In response, the White House froze $2.3 billion in research funding. Then came further threats: Trump vowed to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and said he’d redirect research money to trade schools. By June, talks had resumed—though without progress. In July, Harvard began providing employment records to the federal government but refused to share information about student workers.
The New York Times reported last week that Harvard was open to settling for as much as $500 million, more than double what Columbia University agreed to pay in its own deal. According to the Times, Trump was privately pressing Harvard to pay even more. The paper also said school officials believed a settlement might shield the university from further legal fights over the remainder of Trump’s term.
Trump, for his part, said in June that a deal might come “over the next week or so.” That window has long passed, and he’s since told aides he won’t approve any agreement unless Harvard offers many millions.
Harvard’s student paper pushed back on the Times’ story, however. One faculty member told The Crimson that Garber denied Harvard was willing to spend that much, and claimed the leak came from the White House. Still, the Times says it stands by its reporting.
“A Harvard spokesperson declined to comment but disputed the characterization of Garber’s remarks after publication,” The Crimson wrote.
The paper added that Garber and other officials have insisted they won’t accept any deal that threatens Harvard’s academic freedom. What remains unclear is what Garber believes that entails.
Meanwhile, the university has taken steps to appease the Trump administration: eliminating diversity offices, cutting ties with a Palestinian university, promising partnerships with Israeli schools, and granting Garber greater centralized disciplinary authority.
Harvard is currently in court battling Trump on multiple fronts. It’s challenging the freeze on research funds and fighting the administration’s attempt to shut down international student enrollment. So far, judges have sided with the university, but Trump has vowed to appeal.
One by one, other elite universities—Columbia, Brown University, and the University of Pennsylvania—have made deals with Trump to recover their funding and end investigations. But Harvard, which has faced the harshest attacks, hasn’t gone that route. As other schools settle and surrender ground, pressure on Harvard to do the same increases.
However, alumni, faculty, and free speech advocates are urging Garber to stand firm, warning that cutting a deal now could set a dangerous precedent—one that rewards capitulation and punishes academic independence. They’re not wrong. As other universities bend, pressure mounts—and the message is clear: resistance might cost everything.
On Monday, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University published a sharp critique of recent settlement agreements and warned other schools—including Harvard—not to cave.
The institute called the deals “an astonishing transfer of autonomy and authority to the government—and not just to the government, but to an administration whose disdain for the values of the academy is demonstrated anew every day.”