Trump’s 2024 Threats Against Harvard: Feasibility, Politics, and Potential Fallout
In late 2024 and early 2025, former President Donald Trump leveled unprecedented threats against Harvard University, including moves to bar international students from enrolling, strip Harvard of its tax-exempt nonprofit status, and cut off all federal funding. These threats came amid a clash over campus protests and accusations of antisemitism, with Harvard rejecting Trump administration’s demands to overhaul academic programs and policies it deemed unlawful. Below we analyze each threat in turn – assessing its legal feasibility, political likelihood (including checks by Congress or courts), Trump’s past behavior in similar situations, and the key consequences if the threat were carried out or not.
1. Blocking International Students from Harvard
The Threat: Trump’s Department of Homeland Security, led by Kristi Noem, warned in April 2025 that Harvard would “lose the privilege of enrolling foreign students” if it did not comply with federal demands (such as sharing certain records on international students). Trump had also railed that Harvard “teaches hate and stupidity” and thus should admit no foreign students or receive any federal support.
Legal Feasibility: A U.S. president cannot unilaterally ban international students from a specific university without legal cause. Universities must be certified by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) to enroll foreign students on F-1 visas. Revoking that certification requires showing the school violated immigration regulations or failed to comply with reporting requirements – a process typically involving investigations and due process. In Harvard’s case, the administration’s threat was tied to allegations that the university wasn’t cooperating in monitoring “illegal and violent activities” of visa holders. Harvard maintained it was following the law and would not “relinquish its constitutional rights” under pressure. Bottom line: Trump alone could not simply block all foreign enrollments by decree; DHS could attempt to suspend Harvard’s visa certification, but that would almost certainly prompt immediate legal challenges. Indeed, Harvard and MIT successfully sued the Trump administration in 2020 to stop an ICE rule that would have forced international students out of the country if their classes went online, leading the government to rescind the order. This precedent shows that courts are likely to scrutinize and block executive actions seen as arbitrary or beyond statutory authority when it comes to student visas.
Political Likelihood: Even if legally shaky, Trump’s threat to bar international students signaled a willingness to test the limits of executive power. Politically, such a move would provoke strong opposition from the higher education community and many lawmakers. In 2025, numerous universities (including Columbia, Princeton, and Stanford) quickly voiced support for Harvard’s stance, rejecting government dictates on whom they can admit. Congressional Democrats denounced the threats, and some Republicans might quietly oppose damaging a world-leading university and the innovation it produces. Any attempt to follow through (e.g. by having DHS revoke Harvard’s student visa program certification) could be checked by the courts or even Congress, especially if seen as a retaliation violating academic freedom or due process. Notably, federal law (the Administrative Procedure Act) prohibits agency actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion,” which Harvard could cite in court if DHS acted without solid legal grounds. Given the immediate backlash and pending lawsuits, the political likelihood of actually expelling or blocking international students from Harvard is low – unless Harvard were found in clear violation of immigration laws (for which no evidence has been presented).
Trump’s Past Behavior: Trump has a record of pushing immigration restrictions affecting students and others, often courting legal trouble. For example, in 2020 his administration tried to bar international students from staying in the U.S. if their universities went fully online during COVID-19, a move widely seen as coercive and lacking legal merit; it was swiftly withdrawn after Harvard, MIT, and dozens of states sued. In 2017, Trump’s travel ban targeted entire countries and initially ensnared students and scholars, until courts intervened to narrow its scope. These episodes suggest Trump is willing to issue hard-line directives on international entrants even if they exceed traditional constraints, expecting the legal battles to play out later. In the case of Harvard, his administration’s immediate freeze of certain research grants over a policy disagreement indicates he was prepared to penalize the university first and litigate the consequences after. Trump’s past behavior thus points to a high probability that he would at least attempt to enforce a foreign-student ban despite dubious legality, counting on agency loyalists and a lengthy court process to carry out or prolong the action.
Potential Consequences If Carried Out:
● Academic and Economic Impact: Stopping international students from enrolling at Harvard would deprive the university (and the country) of top talent. Harvard hosts thousands of foreign students who contribute to research breakthroughs and campus diversity. Losing them could diminish the quality of academic programs and innovation, and harm Harvard financially (international students often pay full tuition, supporting scholarships and budgets). There would also be ripple effects as industries that rely on Harvard-trained experts (tech, medicine, science) might face a smaller talent pool in the long run.
● Global Reputation and Diplomacy: Such a move would send a hostile signal to global academia. The U.S. has long been a magnet for international scholars; shutting the door at a premier institution could encourage students to choose other countries, weakening U.S. soft power and influence. American students could lose opportunities to learn alongside and network with global peers, and international research collaborations might suffer.
● Legal/Constitutional Precedent: If Trump succeeded, it would set a precedent that the Executive can strong-arm universities by leveraging student visa approvals. This could chill free inquiry – schools might fear admitting students from countries or of ideologies the White House disfavors. It might also provoke legislative action to protect universities: Congress could clarify limits on executive power over academic institutions to prevent future overreach.
Potential Consequences If Trump’s Threats Are Not Carried Out:
● Harvard would continue to enroll international students, maintaining its diverse campus and research output. The swift legal pushback would reinforce the principle that universities have legal protections against arbitrary federal interference – a victory for academic freedom and the rule of law.
● A failure by Trump to carry out this threat (due to legal defeat or political pressure) could embolden other universities to stand their ground if faced with similar demands. The episode would highlight checks and balances at work: courts upholding immigration law procedures and perhaps Congress scrutinizing any abuse of visa regulation for political ends. In the long run, not carrying out the threat avoids the negative academic and diplomatic fallout, though it may leave an atmosphere of tension and prompt schools to remain vigilant about federal policy changes.
2. Revoking Harvard’s Nonprofit Tax Status
The Threat: Incensed by Harvard’s resistance, Trump threatened to strip Harvard of its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. On social media he mused about whether to end Harvard’s tax exemption for propagating what he termed “terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness’” on campus. By mid-April 2025, Trump allies hinted that the IRS was actively looking into rescinding Harvard’s nonprofit status. This would effectively turn Harvard into a taxable entity – a dramatic punishment for a university.
Legal Feasibility: Legally, the President cannot unilaterally revoke a university’s tax-exempt status. Nonprofit status (for educational institutions under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3)) is governed by law and IRS regulations. To lose that status, an organization must violate certain criteria – for instance, engaging in excessive lobbying or political campaigning, or not operating exclusively for educational purposes. There is no precedent for yanking a major university’s exemption over ideological disagreements. The IRS would have to determine that Harvard no longer functions as a bona fide educational nonprofit, a stance that would be exceedingly hard to justify. Using the IRS as a political weapon would also raise constitutional red flags (First Amendment violations and viewpoint discrimination). Even if the IRS attempted revocation at the administration’s behest, Harvard would be entitled to appeal the decision in U.S. Tax Court and beyond, a process that could take years and would scrutinize the government’s motives. In short, Trump alone could pressure the IRS, but any actual revocation would have to stand up to legal review, and punitive motive would not be a lawful basis. (Notably, tax law requires that tax-exempt status be based on an organization’s purpose and activities, “not political disagreements or policy disputes”.) The feasibility is low without new legislation – and Congress passing a law targeting one specific institution’s tax status would itself likely violate constitutional principles of equal protection or be struck as a bill of attainder.
Political Likelihood: The political likelihood of this threat being realized is very slim. Congressional checks are a major factor. Congress oversees the tax code, and stripping a single university of nonprofit status would alarm not just Democrats but many Republicans who have ties to higher education. Harvard’s endowment and research benefit constituents nationwide (through scholarships, medical research, etc.), so punitive taxation could face bipartisan skepticism. Even within the executive branch, career IRS officials would be wary – historically, IRS targeting of specific entities for political reasons has led to scandal. There is also a high likelihood of judicial intervention on First Amendment grounds (courts would view retaliatory tax moves as a threat to free speech/academic freedom). Politically, however, the threat itself played well with Trump’s base, who often view elite universities as biased “liberal” strongholds. Trump might find support among some Republican voters or lawmakers for the idea of “taxing Harvard,” especially given Harvard’s large $53+ billion endowment. Indeed, back in 2017, the GOP-controlled Congress did impose a new excise tax on wealthy university endowments (including Harvard’s) as part of tax reform. But actually revoking 501(c)(3) status outright would go much further and set a precedent every large university (and nonprofit) would fear. The political blowback from the entire U.S. higher education sector – including many red-state universities – makes it unlikely that even a Republican-led Congress or the broader establishment would greenlight this extreme step.
Trump’s Past Behavior: Trump has a pattern of threatening or using federal powers against perceived enemies, though often these threats run into legal barriers. While there’s no direct precedent of him targeting a university’s tax status in his first term, he frequently floated punitive ideas. For example, he suggested challenging licenses of media outlets that criticized him, even though he lacked authority to do so. In 2019, Trump openly encouraged scrutiny of universities’ tax exemptions if they “censor” conservative speech, and he signed an executive order linking federal research funds to campus free speech compliance. Moreover, as president he showed a willingness to politicize federal agencies that resist him. An illustrative case is Trump’s pressure on the USPS and threats toward Amazon (whose owner, Jeff Bezos, also owns The Washington Post), or his influence over the Justice Department to investigate adversaries. In the Harvard dispute, reports that the IRS was “planning to take away Harvard’s tax-exempt status” at Trump’s behest mirror how he often tests agency independence. This history suggests Trump might indeed push the IRS to find a pretext to punish Harvard, even if it meant breaking norms or prompting resignations. Already, in an unrelated move, his administration had urged the IRS to share confidential taxpayer data with ICE for immigration enforcement, alarming officials. Thus, the probability of Trump attempting to defy legal constraints here – by ordering or strong-arming action against Harvard’s tax status – is high. The probability of him succeeding without restraint is far lower, given the robust legal defenses Harvard would mount.
Potential Consequences if Trump’s Threats Are Not Carried Out:
● Financial Damage to Harvard: Losing nonprofit status would mean Harvard’s income (including endowment investment returns and possibly certain donations) becomes taxable. Analysts estimate Harvard’s annual federal tax bill could exceed $465 million if its exemption were lost. Donors might be less inclined to give large gifts, since contributions to Harvard would no longer be tax-deductible. Over time, this could cripple funding for scholarships, research, and public service programs that Harvard’s endowment supports. Harvard might have to slash financial aid or cut research initiatives that benefit the public (in medicine, science, etc.), and tuition could rise further to make up for lost funds.
● Precedent for Other Nonprofits: If this move succeeded, it would send shockwaves through the nonprofit sector – especially universities and perhaps even political advocacy nonprofits. It would suggest that tax-exempt status can be revoked for not aligning with the ideology of those in power. That precedent could chill speech; universities might self-censor or avoid certain research, fearing government retribution. It could also open the door to partisan use of the IRS against charities, churches, or foundations, undermining the rule-of-law expectation that tax laws be applied impartially.
● Constitutional Crisis: Carrying out a politicized revocation would almost certainly trigger a constitutional showdown. Harvard would fight in court, likely arguing violation of its First Amendment rights (claiming it was punished for the speech and views tolerated on campus) and arguing the action was ultra vires (beyond executive authority). A prolonged court battle could even reach the Supreme Court, potentially resulting in landmark decisions clarifying the limits of executive power over tax regulations and the protection of academic freedom. In the short term, there would be chaos in funding for ongoing federally supported research at Harvard, and possibly faculty or students leaving for more stable institutions.
Potential Consequences if Trump’s Threats Are Not Carried Out:
● If Trump’s threat to revoke Harvard’s nonprofit status is not executed (whether due to legal injunctions, IRS inaction, or political reversal), the immediate consequence is avoiding a major financial and legal crisis for Harvard and other universities. Harvard would continue operating as a nonprofit, ensuring stability for its finances, donors, and students.
● A failed attempt would reaffirm norms that even the President cannot whimsically weaponize the tax code against critics. This could strengthen confidence in the IRS’s political independence. Other universities and nonprofits would breathe a sigh of relief, but they might also rally to put in place safeguards – for example, lobbying Congress to reinforce protections for educational institutions’ tax statuses or to increase oversight of any IRS actions that appear politically motivated.
● However, even an unrealized threat can have a chilling effect. Harvard’s stand made it a target; smaller colleges might think twice before crossing a hostile administration, even if the worst outcome was averted. In the long term, the episode might spur discussions in Congress about revisiting the rules for tax-exempt status (though not necessarily in a punitive way) – for instance, clarifying that universities should remain nonprofit as long as they fulfill educational missions, regardless of political controversies on campus.
3. Cutting All Federal Funding to Harvard
The Threat: Trump bluntly declared that Harvard “should no longer receive federal funds”. His administration swiftly acted to freeze over $2 billion in existing federal grants and contracts to Harvard in retaliation for the university’s defiance. The suggestion was that unless Harvard complied with the White House’s demands (such as abolishing certain diversity programs and altering its handling of protests), it would face an indefinite cutoff of federal research money, student aid, and any other federal support.
Legal Feasibility: U.S. presidents have limited authority to unilaterally cut congressionally appropriated funding to specific institutions. Federal funding to universities comes in multiple forms: research grants (from agencies like NIH, NSF, DoD), student financial aid (federal student loans and Pell grants), and other programmatic funds. While the executive branch administers these funds, it generally cannot withhold them as punishment without legal cause. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the government can terminate funding to an institution found guilty of discrimination – which the Trump administration alleged, claiming Harvard allowed an antisemitic environment in violation of Title VI. However, as Reuters reported, cutting funds under Title VI requires a lengthy process: investigation, administrative hearings, findings of fact, and a 30-day notice to Congress. As of mid-April 2025, no such due process had occurred for Harvard (or Columbia, which faced similar threats). In other words, an immediate total funding cutoff would be legally premature and likely unlawful without following statutory procedures. Apart from Title VI, a President might try to direct agencies to halt new grants or delay payments, but that runs into problems if funds were legally mandated or already contracted – agencies can be sued for breach of contract or violating the Administrative Procedure Act if they arbitrarily suspend grants. Indeed, the faculty at Columbia University filed a suit arguing the administration’s grant terminations violated their rights and the law, and a federal judge ordered the government to respond in court. Historically, when Trump tried a similar move – issuing an executive order in 2017 to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities” – the courts blocked it as an unconstitutional violation of the sovereignty of the local governments. Bottom line: Legally, Trump could freeze or redirect some discretionary funds (as a temporary measure), but permanently cutting all federal support to Harvard without Congress would not hold up in court.
Political Likelihood: Politically, the likelihood of completely zeroing out Harvard’s federal funding is low, but partial measures have already been taken. Trump’s base and some allies cheered the hard line against an Ivy League institution they view as elitist and hostile to conservatives. However, Congressional and institutional pushbacks would be fierce if this went too far. Federal research funding is competitive and merit-based; removing a top research university like Harvard from eligibility undermines national interests in scientific and medical advancement. Lawmakers from Massachusetts (and many others who value research done at Harvard-affiliated labs, hospitals, and institutes) vocally opposed the move. Even some Republicans might worry about the precedent of an administration punishing any university that disagrees with it – since today it’s Harvard, but tomorrow it could be a state university or defense contractor in their own district. Still, given partisan divides, one could expect a Republican-controlled House to support Trump’s stance rhetorically, while a Democratic-controlled Senate (if in place) would resist. The judiciary is an important check here: as noted, courts have intervened in past cases of executive overreach on funding (from sanctuary cities to conditions on education funds). Also, practical politics matter – cutting all funding would even hit financial aid for low-income students and research on diseases, which is hard to defend publicly. The most politically likely outcome was a continued freeze or slow bleed of certain funds (to exert pressure) rather than an outright, permanent cutoff, unless Harvard capitulated (which it signaled it would not).
Trump’s Past Behavior: Trump has repeatedly threatened to yank federal funding of institutions as a way to enforce his preferences. In February 2017, upset over protests at U.C. Berkeley, he tweeted, “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech... NO FEDERAL FUNDS?”. While that threat was not carried out, it set the tone for his willingness to politicize funding. He similarly vowed to withhold funds from “sanctuary cities” that didn’t cooperate with federal immigration enforcement – an order that was quickly blocked by a judge as unconstitutional. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump threatened to cut funding to schools that refused to reopen in-person on his timetable. In those cases, either the threats did not materialize, or they were stymied by legal challenges and political blowback. However, Trump did follow through in some contexts by using executive tools. For example, his administration withheld congressionally approved security aid to Ukraine in 2019 for political reasons (until exposed, leading to impeachment proceedings). That incident showed Trump’s willingness to defy legal norms around appropriated funds for personal or political ends. As previously stated above, his administration actually froze over $2 billion in multi-year research grants for Harvard almost immediately, demonstrating a readiness to act first and justify later. This mirrored how he often operated in his first term; push the boundaries (e.g. implementing a travel ban without typical vetting or declaring a national emergency to divert Pentagon funds to build a border wall) and then battle out the legalities post hoc. So, the probability of Trump attempting to defy constraints and cut funding is high – he had already begun to do so. The probability of him getting away with it long-term is much lower, given the legal and institutional forces arrayed against such a move.
Potential Consequences if Carried Out:
● Research and Innovation: An all-out federal funding cut would deal a huge blow to research at Harvard and its affiliated institutions (like Harvard Medical School and associated hospitals). In the 2024 fiscal year, federal research grants made up 68% of Harvard’s total sponsored research revenue (totaling $686 million). Terminating these would halt projects ranging from critical medical trials to engineering and climate research. The immediate fallout could include layoffs of research staff, termination of ongoing clinical studies (impacting patients), and loss of progress in fields where Harvard leads. In the long run, U.S. scientific leadership might suffer as research shifts to institutions or countries with more stable support.
● Student Impact: Federal funds also include student financial aid. Harvard’s undergraduates benefit from Pell Grants and federal work-study programs, and many graduate students rely on federal fellowships or training grants. Cutting funding means some low-income students might lose aid (though Harvard could try to fill the gap from its endowment). It could also force reductions in programs or services that rely on federal dollars. This runs counter to the idea of expanding educational opportunity – an ironic outcome if a policy meant to punish Harvard ends up hurting students, including those the administration claims to protect (such as Jewish students who benefit from campus improvements and security funded partly by federal grants).
● Broader Academic Community: If such a draconian cut were carried out and upheld, it would send a message to all universities: fall in line or risk your federal support. This could undermine academic freedom nationally. Universities might preemptively avoid research or speakers that could anger government officials. It also sets a partisan precedent – a future Democratic president could be pressed to cut funds to conservative-leaning colleges or states, a tit-for-tat that politicizes education funding. The collaborative nature of research means Harvard’s loss is everyone’s loss; many multi-university projects (e.g., consortiums on climate or cancer research) would be disrupted if one partner loses funding arbitrarily.
● Economic and Reputational Fallout: Massachusetts’ economy could take a hit – Harvard brings in federal dollars that create local jobs and innovation (biotech spinoffs, patents, startups). Internationally, America’s reputation as a stable place for research and study would be damaged, perhaps driving talent elsewhere (similar to the impact discussed with international students). Harvard itself, while wealthy, cannot instantly replace $2+ billion in research funding annually; even tapping its endowment has limits (many funds are legally restricted to specific uses). Prolonged funding loss could force Harvard to scale back its mission and presence significantly.
Potential Consequences if Trump’s Threats Are Not Carried Out:
● If the threat to cut funding fizzles out – due to court injunctions or a political deal – Harvard can resume its research and operations with federal support intact. In the short term, this means critical research continues unimpeded, and students and faculty are reassured that their work and aid won’t vanish due to political fights.
● A failed defunding attempt would reinforce the norm that federal funding decisions must follow the law (and not the president’s personal grievances). It would strengthen universities’ resolve to uphold academic principles without capitulating to political pressure. Other institutions, which might have capitulated to avoid loss of funds, could be heartened by Harvard’s success in standing firm. For example, in early 2025, Columbia University initially negotiated with the Trump administration after $400 million in grants were pulled, but Harvard’s legal stand and support from peers may embolden Columbia and others to resist overreach.
● However, the conflict might leave lingering distrust. The government-university relationship could be strained; future grant dealings might come with warier compliance checks on both sides. It could prompt Congress to clarify the conditions under which federal funds can be withheld – possibly tightening or reaffirming requirements of Title VI or other statutes to ensure they can’t be misused as a cudgel. In the best case, not carrying out the threat means academic freedom wins this round, and the principle that universities should be free from direct political retribution is upheld, preserving the integrity of federal research endeavors.
Conclusion
Donald Trump’s 2024-era threats against Harvard – blocking international students, yanking its tax-exempt status, and cutting off federal funds – represent an extraordinary confrontation between executive power and institutional autonomy. Legally, each threat is on shaky ground when wielded unilaterally: immigration and tax laws and federal funding rules all impose processes and limits that a president cannot bypass at whim. Politically, while such hardball tactics might play to partisan crowds, they face countervailing pressure from Congress, the courts, and civil society, making full realization of the threats unlikely. Trump’s first term (2017–2021) provided ample context of his willingness to test these boundaries – from threatening Berkeley and sanctuary cities to battling universities over immigration policy – and showed that he often proceeded until checked by other branches of government . The probability of Trump attempting to act despite constraints is high (consistent with his norm-defying style), but the probability of lasting success in these efforts is much lower, given America’s legal and political safeguards.
In sum, each threat, if carried out, could have inflicted serious harm not only on Harvard but on core pillars of American higher education and research. If not carried out, the saga becomes a cautionary tale – highlighting the resilience of legal institutions and the importance of academic freedom in the face of political pressure. Harvard’s showdown with Trump in 2024–25 may well set the tone for how far a president can go in using executive power against a domestic institution, and how firmly such institutions and the nation’s checks and balances can respond in defense of the rule of law and educational liberty.
Note: Feel free to send me corrections, new ideas for articles, or anything else you think I would like: cameronfen at gmail dot com.
If you are interested in listening to a (AI distilled) podcast on this article instead of reading, some of my articles will be posted as podcasts https://www.youtube.com/@cameronfen203. Unlike the articles, I have not listened to and fact-checked the podcast output. AI models are known to hallucinate information and even if it’s based on something factual, I encourage you to approach the podcast as entertainment and keep a skeptical eye out for fake news. Please like and subscribe here and on YouTube if you feel like it’s a worthwhile resource, as it helps other people find the blog. Let me know if you want more articles uploaded as podcasts.