The Trump administration announced a $2.2 billion freeze on Harvard University’s federal funding on April 14, a move that has disrupted major research efforts, triggered layoffs and cut academic resources across multiple departments.
The freeze has jeopardized ongoing research across multiple fields, halting projects in medical science, engineering and the social sciences, and has additionally led to layoffs, reduced Ph.D. opportunities and cancelled office leases for the health and sciences departments.
While Harvard holds the largest university endowment in the US – of over $50 billion according to CNN – the university relies on federal grants and tuition to cover two-thirds of its operating budget.
Nearly half of The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s budget in 2025 relies on federal funding. This funding went towards both research expenses and maintaining the facilities and administration needed to support their work.
Sophomore and president of the Cultural Health and Equity Club Jaslynn Lee said the freeze will have broader consequences, even beyond Harvard.
“With research, we can develop new treatments and cures for diseases, improve healthcare (and) create new innovations,” Lee said. “By Harvard having to halt their medical research, it stops them from being able to perform what can be critical research. But this also doesn’t just affect Harvard. It affects communities around us. If there is a removal of funding for more institutions, it delays our progress in reaching our full potential. It can widen health disparities that depend most on these breakthroughs and push back life-saving discoveries.”
According to Harvard’s website, because of these cuts, research on cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative illnesses, infectious diseases and organ transplantation is now in jeopardy. Some projects, including those studying radiation exposure, ALS diagnostics and tuberculosis treatment, have already shut down.
Chemistry and Marine Biology teacher Margaret Deng agrees and said Harvard funding cuts affect research across a wide range of fields, not just medicine.
“Even other studies that aren’t medicine-related are also extremely important,” Deng said. “For example, wildfires –– if you know the science behind them, then you know how to prevent them. We need to be a more science-oriented country. Look at Japan, look at Korea. They are so high-tech because they put so much money into science and researching science.”
Senior Max Beach, however, supports the freeze and said it pushes Harvard to rely on its own resources.
“Harvard is sitting on over $50 billion of endowment,” Beach said. “I don’t think there’s any reason that taxpayers should keep up with subsidizing the wealthiest university on planet earth. By pulling the federal funds, it forces Harvard to spend their own money, (curbing) the cycle of tuition inflation and extreme ideological bloat which goes on at Harvard. If Harvard truly believes in a free market, (they) can live by it. Cutting the federal dollars reminds Harvard that nonprofit isn’t a license to drain the treasury.”
Former Santa Clara County Republican Party Chairman Shane Patrick Connolly said that while the funding freeze in response to the controversy at Harvard is broad, it may become more targeted if applied to other universities in the future.
“The administration’s approach initially was like putting on a blanket freeze,” Connolly said. “But once they get a lay of the land, they’re able to iterate to a more targeted approach to reduce the deficit. For example, they could specifically cut junk research.”
The funding cuts could also limit Harvard’s academic programs. According to CNN, Departments that rely heavily on federal funding may reduce course offerings, hiring and support services. CNN also said graduate students, particularly in research fields, could lose critical opportunities.
According to the Harvard Gazette, While Harvard’s endowment may provide temporary relief, the long-term effects of the frozen funding are uncertain, and experts say similar cuts could reach other universities.
For students hoping to enter science or research fields, the freeze hits close to home.
Senior Angela Rao said these cuts will affect all undergraduate opportunities.
“Going in as a STEM major, the biggest impact would be less research opportunities,” Rao said. “Professors have less freedom to hire just anyone and explore trial and error in their work because they have limited resources and more pressure to have real results. More broadly, students also won’t be able to explore as much because lots of clubs and educational programs are initiated by students and supported by institutions.”
Rao isn’t the only student concerned about the broader implications of the freeze. Senior Keerath Pujji said she worries about a potential decline in the quality of education if more institutions are affected.
“Many public schools will have to cut down on hiring additional faculty, which would mean larger classes and less guidance for students going to public colleges,” Pujji said.
The freeze stems from Harvard’s public rejection of a federal letter outlining demands Harvard would have to follow to maintain its government funding. The demands include changes in governance, leadership, hiring, admissions, student programs and disciplinary policy. The Trump Administration justified these demands by citing Harvard’s lack of action toward antisemitism on campus. University officials argue the freeze infringes on Harvard’s independence and violates due process protections.
Connolly said that Harvard may be using staff layoffs as a strategic response to the funding freeze, but this may backfire and taint Harvard’s image.
“Instead of taking a little bit of money out from their endowment, they actually laid off people which I think is just a political tactic to try to put pressure back on the government to give them the money,” Connolly said. “There are already large alumni donors who’ve stopped donating because of what was happening to Jewish students on campus.”
The immediate trigger for the freeze was Harvard’s public rejection of an April 11 letter sent by Sean Keveney, the acting general counsel of the federal Department of Health and Human Services.
Senior Samantha Fan said the lack of resources can delay advancements that benefit education, and ultimately, society at large.
“Less funding means less research projects for students to participate in and gain the experience that they need to enter a career focused on research,” Fan said. “Not only this, it could also mean the complete removal of certain Ph.D. programs within the colleges as they simply do not have the funds for it.”
Although the White House later admitted the letter was mistakenly sent, according to the New York Post, the Trump administration is still going along with the freeze, claiming Harvard failed to engage seriously with the concerns raised.
In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit against the White House on April 17, calling the funding freeze unlawful –– especially given the mistaken letter and unclear demands. The university also argued the measures would interfere with its academic freedom.
The case is set to be heard on July 21, and until then, Harvard will remain without the frozen funds until then –– unless the administration reverses its decision.
Looking forward, the court’s decision could ripple across the higher education landscape.
“It will have some impact on other universities,” Connolly said. “It’ll determine how much the government can intervene in universities.”