March 31, 2025 — Federal Review Threatens Harvard's $8.9B Funding: What You Need to Know About Today's Announcement

Earlier today, the federal government launched a sweeping review of Harvard's federal funding – more than $8.9B across contracts and multi-year grants – citing concerns that the University has failed to address antisemitic discrimination and ideological intolerance on campus. Although funding has not been frozen, the announcement signals that Stop Work Orders could still follow. Coming just weeks after Columbia's $400 million freeze, the move highlights the real risk Harvard faces if it does not adequately respond.

In this special edition, we:

— Break down what the government announced and what's at stake.

— Outline three key takeaways about the scale, scope, and risks of the review.

— Track the initial steps Harvard has taken so far, including those mirroring our recommendations to date.

— Lay out additional actions Harvard could take to help avoid Columbia's fate.

Bottom line: read to the end for a clear picture of what's happened, what's next, and what's to watch as this unfolds.

What happened today?

Earlier today, the same three agencies behind Columbia's funding freeze from March 7 announced a comprehensive review of Harvard's federal funding with approximately $9 billion that could be suspended, citing Harvard's "failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination — all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry."

The review covers more than $255.6 million in federal contracts and more than $8.7 billion in multi-year grant commitments to Harvard University and its affiliates (like Massachusetts General Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute). While no funding has been halted yet, the Task Force may issue Stop Work Orders depending on its findings from the review. The Free Press reported that if Harvard doesn't "take steps this week, it could begin to lose funding," but did not specify which steps.

In the last few days, Harvard has taken incremental steps toward the key recommendations we outlined in our March 23 newsletter. While limited, these actions begin to address both community and government concerns around antisemitism and refocus the university on academic excellence and its north star of Veritas:

— Our recommendation: Increase transparency around efforts to increase academic rigor.

Harvard's changes last week: Harvard announced directors of Faculty of Arts & Sciences (FAS) centers must explain how their centers promote "exposure to different ideas, perspectives, and topics." Harvard also dismissed the directors of the "blatantly one-sided" Center for Middle Eastern Studies and suspended the School of Public Health's FXB Center partnership with Birzeit University while the center undergoes a review for academic excellence.

— Our recommendation: Enforce Harvard's own rules publicly.
Harvard's change last week: Harvard College finally enforced its policy prohibiting unrecognized student groups from using campus resources. The Adams House resident dean warned a student she'd be referred to the Ad Board (disciplinary board) for booking a room for an unauthorized group, according to The Crimson

— Our recommendation: Reform Harvard's disciplinary structure.
Harvard's change last week: FAS Dean Hopi Hoekstra endorsed Friday's report and recommendations from the Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Administrative Boards of Harvard College and the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, including a recommendation to allow appeals only for students forced to withdraw, not for those placed solely on probation. 

What are the key takeaways?

— The $8.9B figure is large — but expected. While this number is eye-catching, it also tracks with Harvard's scale, especially since many of Harvard Medical School's 12,000 faculty conduct research at HMS-affiliated institutions, which also rely heavily on federal funding. In fact, in our March 9 newsletter, we estimated that if Harvard faced a review of its federal funding, it would be for an amount around $2.2 billion annually.  Since federal grants span approximately four years on average each, the total amount under review — $8.9 billion — checks out.

— The scope of the review remains unclear. The Task Force has not disclosed which specific contracts or affiliates were included in its initial review, or what will be covered in the next phase. For now, Harvard has been directed to turn over a comprehensive list of all federal contracts, including from its many affiliates. Still, it's unknown how much of this information the federal government already had or how quickly enforcement could follow.

— No immediate freeze, but that could change. Today's announcement does not include a freeze of Harvard's federal funding. However, it's worth noting that Columbia was simply placed under review for potential Title IV violations, but after what the Task Force called "continued inaction," it issued the $400m freeze four days later.

In that context, Harvard's review may be a first step, not a final outcome. Harvard's response in the coming days may determine if and how federal enforcement escalates.

What additional steps could Harvard take to avoid a freeze?

Following its funding freeze, Columbia swiftly enacted several notable policies: suspending and expelling students who had violated its rules in last spring's protests; restructuring its disciplinary board to report to the Provost; appointing a Senior Vice Provost to review Middle East-focused academic centers and curriculum to ensure academic excellence; and issuing a formal commitment to institutional neutrality.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said these reforms showed things were "on the right track" toward reinstating funding (a process later complicated by President Armstrong's snafu and resignation).

While we mentioned above that Harvard has taken steps in the right direction on some of the recommendations we outlined in our March 23 newsletter, there are many more steps the University could take, including ones inspired by Columbia, such as:

— Enforce its own rules publicly. Harvard could release general (non-identifying) statements about the outcomes of disciplinary proceedings related to last academic year's Yard encampment, University Hall sit-in, and HBS protest that resulted in assault and battery charges. If these outcomes fail to reflect objective rule enforcement, Harvard could redo the disciplinary process — this time seriously — as Columbia recently did.

— Reform its disciplinary structure. Harvard could standardize and centralize its Administrative Board (Ad Board) and appeals processes across all schools to ensure consistency and prevent ideological discrepancies in sanctions. The University could also institute a rigorous screening process for candidates who join the disciplinary and appeals bodies to ensure no bias and a commitment to upholding the rules.

Last Friday's change limited appeals to students forced to withdraw from Harvard, but it failed to address a potentially deeper issue: members of disciplinary and appeals boards who refuse to uphold University rules, especially when they sympathize politically with the students involved.

— Establish a 'mask ban.' After Columbia failed to do so, Harvard could set an example for universities by establishing and actually enforcing a thoughtful, legally sound masking policy — one that respects legitimate exceptions, like medical or religious reasons.

— Update orientation training. Harvard could introduce mandatory training on antisemitism, anti-Zionism, anti-Israeli discrimination, civil discourse, and viewpoint diversity for students, faculty, and staff across all schools.

— Increase transparency around academic rigor. All the schools of Harvard, not just FAS, could follow Dean Hoekstra's example and require program and center directors to demonstrate how they are advancing academic excellence and Veritas, rather than specific political agendas.

— Publish Task Force reports. Harvard should release the long-overdue final reports from the Presidential Task Forces on Antisemitism and Islamophobia. Additionally, Harvard Business School (HBS) should release the full internal reports completed by its own task forces (not just the high-level summary).

— Review admissions procedures. Harvard could implement a University-wide performance management system for admissions officers to assess and address potential biases–including political or religious biases–in their decision making.

Stay Tuned…

With the federal review now public, all eyes are on if — and how — the University rises to meet this critical moment and attempts to avoid repeating the recent chaos that has unfolded at Columbia.  

Either way, 1636 Forum will continue tracking news and sharing our insights and timely updates.

Keep emailing us your questions in the meantime, and don't forget to forward this newsletter to your Harvard community and encourage them to stay informed by subscribing here.