Garber Condemns Federal Grant Disqualification but Says Harvard Shares ‘Common Ground’ With McMahon

Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 reaffirmed in a Monday letter that the University would not bow to interference from the Trump administration — even as he suggested Harvard and the government “share common ground.”

In a three-page message addressed to United States Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, who announced one week ago that the Trump administration would no longer issue any grants or contracts to Harvard, Garber defended Harvard’s record on antisemitism and doubled down on the University’s refusal to concede to what he called an unlawful attempt to shape its core values.

“Harvard’s efforts to achieve these goals are undermined and threatened by the federal government’s overreach into the constitutional freedoms of private universities and its continuing disregard of Harvard’s compliance with the law,” he wrote.

The Monday letter marks Garber’s first public response to McMahon’s announcement, which came on top of an $2.2 billion cut in federal funding that was announced last month. Harvard sued nine federal agencies over the initial cut, which it alleged was coercive and beyond federal authority.

McMahon claimed in her letter last week that Harvard had flouted the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on affirmative action and lowered its academic standards by offering introductory math courses and fellowships to prominent Democrats.

Garber’s response — which took a sober tone throughout, urging McMahon to recognize Harvard’s reforms and constitutional protections — struck a sharp contrast with McMahon’s mocking missive. He denied that Harvard had violated the law and described the latest cuts as “unfounded retaliation by the federal government.”

He seemed to walk a tightrope between rejecting the Trump administration’s threats as overreach, and as a danger to ground-breaking scientific research, while largely avoiding condemnation of the government’s stated goals.

“As your letter suggests, we share common ground,” Garber wrote. He began with a litany of goals he said he and McMahon shared: ending campus antisemitism, encouraging free speech, fostering diverse viewpoints on campus, and following the law.

Then he disputed McMahon’s allegations against Harvard almost point by point.

Garber rejected McMahon’s characterization of Harvard’s admission process for students, writing that the University was in full compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling.

“We are sharpening our focus on individuals and their unique characteristics rather than their race,” he wrote. “Admission to any of Harvard’s schools is based on academic excellence and promise.”

Garber also pushed back against McMahon’s allegation that Harvard’s hiring process for faculty involves quotas and screening for political ideology.

“We do not have quotas,” he wrote. “We hire people because of their individual accomplishments, promise, and creativity in their fields or areas of expertise.”

He advertised that Harvard’s hiring decisions do not consider diversity statements — a requirement that Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences ended only last June.

In response to criticism that international students were the driving force behind a rise in antisemitism and protests at Harvard, Garber strongly defended their place on campus.

“Our international students are vital members of our community,” he wrote, adding that Harvard is “aware of no evidence” suggesting students from abroad being more prone to misconduct than students from the U.S.

Garber ticked off a list of institutional efforts he said showed that Harvard was not standing still. He pointed to procedures announced last month that would allow him to centralize cross-school disciplinary cases under his purview; the release of the long-awaited final reports of the task forces on antisemitism and anti-Arab bias after what he called an “extraordinarily painful year” on campus; and recent investments in expanding the study of Judaism on campus.

But Garber did not frame the changes as a response to the Trump administration's demands — even as some, like disciplinary centralization, closely mirrored measures pushed by federal officials. Instead, he described them as “needed reforms.”

The letter did not mention Harvard’s decision to rename its Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging — nor its cancelation of support for affinity graduation celebrations, seemingly in response to the Education Department’s February claim that such celebrations constitute illegal racial discrimination.

Garber did highlight changes to Harvard’s leadership since he took office in January 2024 — including the appointment of John F. Manning ’22 as provost, new deans for four schools, and changes in the Harvard Corporation’s membership. Almost all the changes happened prior to the federal government’s demands, which asked Harvard to appoint leaders who will help roll out its agenda.

Garber’s letter contested McMahon’s allegation that Harvard was a partisan institution. McMahon had repeated calls for Harvard Corporation Senior Fellow Penny S. Pritzker ’81, whom she called a “Democrat operative,” to resign her seat leading the University.

“It is neither Republican nor Democratic,” Garber wrote. “It is not an arm of any other political party or movement. Nor will it ever be.”

—Staff writer Dhruv T. Patel can be reached at dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @dhruvtkpatel.

—Staff writer Grace E. Yoon can be reached at grace.yoon@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @graceunkyoon.