Congressional Democrats Threaten To Investigate If Harvard Settles With Trump Administration

Fourteen House and Senate Democrats warned Harvard on Thursday that they would consider launching a congressional investigation into any major settlement between the University and the Trump administration.

In a two-page letter sent to Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76, the lawmakers expressed “deep concern” over recent reports that Harvard is weighing a financial settlement with the White House — potentially as much as $500 million — to win back billions of dollars in federal research funding.

“We are alarmed that Harvard would contemplate a settlement of this magnitude under apparent political pressure,” wrote the letter’s signatories, who are all Harvard alumni. “Such a decision would raise serious questions about the preservation of institutional autonomy and academic freedom.”

The letter comes in the wake of three high-profile settlements between Ivy League schools and the Trump administration. The University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, and Brown University all accepted deals that restricted campus programs in exchange for access to research funding. Columbia’s settlement — which acceded to particularly far-reaching demands and ongoing third-party monitoring — also included a more than $200 million payment.

On Thursday, the 14 congressional Democrats described the reported negotiations between Harvard and the White House as part of a “broader pattern” of attempts by the Trump administration to strong-arm independent institutions, including the media and universities.

“Capitulating to politically motivated demands from the Executive Branch risks setting a precedent that could severely undermine the independence not only of Harvard but of educational institutions nationwide,” the letter’s signatories wrote. “It would also signal to other universities that politically driven coercion — rather than legal merit — is a viable mechanism for extracting compliance.”

The Trump administration has leaned on accusations that Harvard failed to fight antisemitism on its campus amid widespread student protests against Israel’s war in Gaza. Federal officials have also suggested that Harvard discriminated against white men in faculty hiring and student admissions.

Though the Democrats’ letter did not specify the nature of the dispute at the center of the reported settlement talks, its authors emphasized that if civil rights violations did occur at Harvard, any settlement should involve the affected students directly, not because of pressure from the White House.

“Yielding to such pressure would normalize the misuse of federal authority to suppress dissent and compromise academic integrity,” they wrote.

The letter also raised questions about the transparency of Harvard’s internal decision-making process, requesting written responses from the University’s leadership by Aug. 13.

The lawmakers asked Harvard to disclose how many meetings it has held with Trump administration representatives, who was involved in those discussions, and what role — if any — faculty, students, and alumni have played in advising the administration’s approach.

They also requested Harvard’s top brass explicitly acknowledge the existence of negotiation talks and detail the terms on the table. To date, Harvard has not publicly confirmed that it has resumed talks with the White House, only nodding to their existence in private calls with top-dollar donors.

Republicans in Congress have long used investigations to humiliate Harvard’s leaders and drive home conservative political priorities, but Thursday’s letter marks the highest-profile effort so far by congressional Democrats to apply countervailing pressure to the University.

It concluded with a stern warning: if Harvard proceeds with a settlement perceived as politically motivated, Congress “retains both the authority and the obligation to investigate.”

The Thursday letter is the first time members of Congress have threatened to exercise oversight against a university for conceding to the White House. But the lawmakers stressed that Harvard’s status as the oldest and wealthiest university in the U.S. made its response especially consequential for the future of higher education.

“Harvard is uniquely positioned to resist improper political pressure from the administration,” they wrote. “We hope that the University also possesses the requisite conviction.”

The Trump administration’s feud with Harvard intensified in April after the University’s decision to defy federal demands. Since then, the White House has launched a volley of attacks, including a $2.2 billion cut to federal grants and contracts, threats to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status, and attempts to forbid its international students and researchers from studying on campus.

Harvard has quietly taken steps to roll back and rein in programs that have drawn fire from federal Republicans, but has nonetheless remained a public symbol of resistance against the Trump administration.

While no deal has been announced with Harvard thus far, President Donald Trump has repeatedly struck a hopeful tone and declared that the University is seeking an agreement.

In the last few weeks, as the White House struck deals against Columbia, Brown, and Penn, it notched significant wins — including restrictions on transgender students’ housing access and athletic participation, new vetting procedures for international students, and restrictions on protests on campus.

The deal with Columbia also subjects the school to annual audits of admissions data — designed to screen for any boosts to minority students, which the Trump administration says are illegal — and commits to a continued administrative review of its Middle East studies programs.

The agreements drew praise from some academics, especially those who felt they addressed longstanding problems in elite higher education without granting undue authority to the Trump administration. But others saw them as a dangerous relinquishment of institutional independence and a threat to academic freedom.

The Thursday letter warned that settlements struck under duress often lead to political scrutiny and self-censorship.

“You cannot enter into a good faith agreement with a party not operating in good faith,” the lawmakers wrote, calling the moment a “test” of Harvard’s values.

The letter’s signatories included Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.). It was also signed by Reps. Sam T. Liccardo (D-Calif.), Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.), Robert C. Scott (D-Va.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Jim Himes (D-Conn.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), Dave Min (D-Calif.), and Luz M. Rivas (D-Calif.), as well as nonvoting Rep. Pablo José Hernández (D-Puerto Rico.).

Nearly all of the signatories have issued public statements in defense of Harvard since its dispute with the White House began in April.

But the letter does not include all Harvard graduates in Congress, nor even all who have voiced support for the University since it became a favored target for the Trump administration. U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a former Crimson Editorial chair, all did not co-sign the Thursday letter. The three previously signed an amicus brief that urged the court to restore Harvard’s federal funding.

—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.