As Harvard Is Hailed a Hero, Some Donors Still Want It to Strike a Deal

To many academics and progressives—and even a number of conservatives—Harvard University has come to symbolize resistance in the face of federal overreach. In the eyes of critics of President Trump, Harvard stood tall when others gave way. As prominent law firms and elite universities such as Columbia bowed to the White House’s demands, Harvard chose a different path, one marked by refusal and legal challenge.

The tension came to a head following an April 11 letter from the Trump administration that proposed sweeping reforms to higher education, targeting academic autonomy and diversity programs. The list of requirements included diminishing the role of faculty in governance and granting federal agencies extensive access to audit internal university data. The Harvard Corporation—the university’s governing body—deemed the demands excessive and formally ended negotiations with the administration.

Despite subsequent efforts from senior White House officials to reopen dialogue, Harvard remained unyielding. Sources familiar with the situation revealed that the administration approached Harvard’s representatives at least three times after the initial fallout, but each attempt was rejected. Buoyed by public approval and internal resolve, most members of the Harvard Corporation agreed to hold their ground. In a decisive move, the university filed a federal lawsuit on Monday, directly challenging the administration’s threats to withdraw billions of dollars in federal funding.

For Harvard’s leadership, this confrontation is a rare moment of unified strength. The university’s board had faced heavy criticism just months earlier, particularly following the resignation of its former president, Claudine Gay, in late 2023. That controversy left the Corporation shaken, with Senior Fellow Penny Pritzker—former U.S. Commerce Secretary and member of the Hyatt hotel dynasty—even considering resignation, according to people familiar with internal discussions.

Yet Harvard’s current stance did not arise from a longstanding opposition to the Trump administration. In fact, in the weeks before April 11, the Corporation appeared more willing to compromise. Spurred on by pressure from influential donors, the board had worked actively to reach an accommodation with the White House.

The university even enlisted the same attorney used by the firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison to negotiate its own arrangement with the administration. President Alan Garber, a seasoned academic holding degrees in both economics and medicine, also explored alternative channels to engage the White House. This included an unsuccessful outreach to Jared Kushner—Trump’s son-in-law and a Harvard alumnus—for assistance.

Garber further approached John Paulson, a billionaire investor and one-time contender for Treasury Secretary under Trump, to help facilitate a meeting with the president. The meeting never materialized, and Harvard’s overtures appeared to go unreciprocated. Not all donors approved of the path Harvard eventually chose. Paulson, along with William Ackman, CEO of Pershing Square, reportedly viewed the university’s opposition as ill-advised. Though these conversations were meant to remain private, multiple individuals disclosed details on the condition of anonymity.

Tensions persisted. On Thursday, Garber and Pritzker hosted a conference call with major donors, many of whom encouraged a settlement rather than continued confrontation. In a public statement, Pritzker emphasized that resisting governmental overreach did not equate to rejecting internal reform.

“Our determination to prevent undue federal interference should not be mistaken for a lack of willingness to make necessary institutional changes,” she said. “We remain committed to combating antisemitism and fostering a community enriched by diverse perspectives.”

A Governing Body Under Pressure

The Harvard Corporation, consisting of 13 members, has a distinctive and long-standing role in university governance. Chartered in 1650, its members—known as fellows—hold significant influence over the school’s direction, including the selection of the university president. They are in regular contact with major constituencies, particularly prominent donors and former administrators.

Even after President Gay’s resignation, several donors expressed continued dissatisfaction. They argued that the Corporation had not addressed antisemitism adequately and was out of touch with the country’s political climate. Some donors reportedly withheld contributions in protest.

Len Blavatnik, a major Trump donor and oil magnate, halted donations and voiced his disappointment directly to Garber, asserting that Harvard’s response had been slow and insufficient. According to insiders, he has since resumed partial financial support. Former Harvard President and Treasury Secretary Larry Summers also warned that the university needed to recalibrate its stance to align with shifting national sentiments. Paulson echoed these concerns during calls with Garber, pressing for greater openness to conservative perspectives.

Although Ackman had become persona non grata on campus following his role in Gay’s ouster, he maintained influence in select circles. Notably, he funded the university’s boathouse and frequently used social media to air concerns, including a widely circulated presentation outlining perceived institutional risks. “Harvard continues to face intense pressure to evolve,” he wrote.

In response, the Corporation introduced new members in 2024. Among them was Joe Bae, a Republican and co-CEO of private equity giant KKR, brought in to ensure greater ideological balance. Also appointed was Ken Frazier, former CEO of Merck, known for his public break with Trump in 2017 following the Charlottesville protests. Along with fellow Black board member Ken Chenault, former CEO of American Express, Frazier expressed support for diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

This move was not universally welcomed. Two donors, according to informed sources, criticized Frazier’s appointment, viewing it as the addition of yet another liberal voice to an already left-leaning board. Others worried that it could further antagonize the administration.

Lloyd Blankfein, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, privately advised Harvard leadership that the school was failing to appreciate the growing skepticism among Republicans toward elite academic institutions. He urged them to better articulate Harvard’s societal contributions.

A Brewing Storm

Once Trump secured reelection, the urgency increased. Kenneth Griffin, Citadel CEO and major Republican donor, reportedly warned Garber early in the year that turbulent times were on the horizon. Joe Bae similarly advised his fellow board members to brace for difficult months ahead.

In mid-February, Garber traveled to Miami for an alumni and donor event. He delivered a speech at the Fontainebleau Hotel, carefully avoiding substantive discussion of antisemitism—something some attendees noted with disappointment. One Florida-based alumnus, Rhys L. Williams, claimed Garber had “deliberately downplayed the issue.”

During the trip, Garber dined with Paulson and others in Palm Beach, reiterating Harvard’s hope to avoid direct conflict with the federal government. He maintained that the administration’s demands would be evaluated in detail before any decisions were made.

Meanwhile, Columbia University became the first casualty of Trump’s educational crackdown. On March 7, the administration rescinded $400 million in federal grants. The university chose to comply with most of the administration’s demands, drawing criticism for capitulating too easily.

Behind the scenes, Harvard raced to avoid a similar fate. In late March, a university donor consulted Condoleezza Rice, who advised the school to approach the matter rationally, keeping financial consequences top of mind. Around the same time, Garber canceled a planned visit to India and retained attorney William Burck, a legal advisor to the Trump Organization, to engage with federal officials.

As a gesture of good faith, Harvard also announced the departure of the director of its Center for Middle Eastern Studies, a long-standing target of conservative critics. Not long after, Garber reached out once again to Kushner, hoping to establish a line of communication.

By early April, preliminary discussions with the administration seemed cautiously optimistic. But on April 12, the White House’s newly formed antisemitism task force abruptly delivered a list of non-negotiable demands. The email, sent overnight, instructed Harvard to dismantle its diversity programs, audit ideological diversity on campus, and review the enrollment of international students.

Pritzker was taken aback. The Corporation had anticipated a collaborative tone—not an ultimatum that resembled, in her words, a “hostile takeover.”

A flurry of messages and calls ensued that weekend. As Passover began, Pritzker and Garber had yet to determine the university’s next steps. But by Sunday, the Corporation convened remotely. With near-unanimous support from members like Ken Chenault and legal heavyweight Theodore Wells Jr., the board voted to resist.

Their chosen course was clear: Harvard would not concede. Instead, it would challenge the administration in court and defend the principles it believes essential to its academic mission.