The Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in federal grants awarded to Harvard, is looking to take away the tax-exempt status held by colleges, and revoked Harvard’s certification to enroll international students (currently blocked by the courts). These actions were taken in response to concerns raised by the administration, including allegations related to antisemitism on campus during Gaza-related protests and reports of Harvard providing training to the XCPP, a Chinese group under US sanctions. The administration cites national security and civil rights protections, but critics say this is a threat to academic freedom and tries to frame elite institutions as politically adversarial.
Before taking a side, let’s examine each argument and explore how different corners of the media report the issue. The goal is to lower the volume, focus on facts, and view the story through a clear lens.
Evidence of Antisemitism at Harvard
In response to the October 7th Hamas attacks, tensions escalated to protests, counter protests and debates on many elite college campuses over the treatment of the Palestinians. Claudine Gay faced heavy criticism for not adequately condemning the Hamas attacks during a Congressional hearing on antisemitism in December ‘23. This eventually led to her resignation. In April, protestors set up encampments to call attention to the issue of funds going to Israel. The encampment at Harvard lasted three weeks and ended with the sides coming to an agreement to remove the encampments with no negotiations or concessions from the college administration. While participants were immediately threatened with disciplinary action, Harvard was able to avoid law enforcement involvement.
Harvard Encampments/PHOTOGRAPH BY NIKO YAITANES/HARVARD MAGAZINE
Harvard initially suspended five students, but reversed course following widespread criticism.
Evidence of Harvard’s work with the XCPP
On May 19, 2025, the Select Committee on the CCP sent a letter to Harvard calling for transparency and accountability over ethical concerns. They stated Harvard provided repeated training to the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC). This group was sanctioned by the US in 2019 for it’s role in the CCP’s genocide of Uyghur Muslims. The Committee also wanted information on research partnerships with universities that are described as having links to the Chinese military, collaborating with Iranian-government funded researchers and with a People’s Republic of China-based group over organ transplant research. Harvard states they are in compliance with the law and these accusations result from their refusal to surrender to the federal government’s illegal assertion of control over curriculum, faculty, and student body.
The government’s response
The Trump administration cited Harvard’s failure to curtail antisemitism when it froze $2 billion in research grants and revoked its ability to enroll international students. It will also work to “aggressively revoke” visas to Chinese students, citing ties to the CCP.
How this is reported in the Media
Depending on the media you frequent, you may have the story framed in ways that evoke certain emotions. Each side employs these methods in ways that promote their world view.
|
Left wing media- New York Times |
Right wing media- The Daily Wire |
|---|---|
|
Framing effect[1] |
|
|
The NY Times emphasizes legal responses and judicial interventions, framing the actions of the administration as threatening the culture of higher education and politically motivated retaliation. |
The Daily Wire claims that a significant portion of the student body attend for free, with implications that Harvard conceals this information. |
|
Ingroup bias[2] |
|
|
The NY Times portrays Harvard as a victim of a “multi pronged” attack and reports the perceived contradictions with the administration's focus of meritocracy when Trump recommended a cap on foreign student admissions to make room for more domestic students. |
The Daily Wire reinforces a populist frame, portraying foreign students as a risk to national security that takes opportunities away from domestic students by representing an outsized portion of the student body. |
|
Confirmation bias[3] |
|
|
The NY Times has not reported on claims from the Select Committee's that Harvard has collaborated with the CCP. |
While the Daily Wire highlights the Trump Admins claims that Harvard gets billions of taxpayers dollars, while excluding the financial contributions, valuable research efforts, or other benefits from the foreign students they attack. |
Who’s right? Both are. Who’s wrong? Both are. Each narrative trims the facts to fit the fear. The articles reviewed from the Daily Wire mostly quotes the members of the Trump administration without adding much context or counter views. It also frames foreign students in a negative context. The articles in the New York Times look at the legal aspects while pointing out perceived contradictions. It also does more to highlight the benefits of attracting foreign students. If you are like most people, it’s probably hard to see an issue with one side, since it aligns with your perspective. Where one person sees a university targeted, another sees the homeland threatened. What’s certain is neither is getting the whole story.
To be clear, this is the system we (the people) reinforce. If people spent more time reading neutral, fact based reporting, the market would absolutely supply that. The emotional reactions from biased articles are entertaining. The partisan portrayal allows us to save the cognitive effort needed to examine the information and really come to our own conclusions.
The problem with this environment is you end up with both sides misreading each other. The actual source of the problem gets lost in the fight and as emotions flare, heels dig in and everyone stops listening. We aren’t identifying actual problems and addressing them procedurally, though the courts are trying. We are in a pressure pot and things are getting more tense with every yell.
My (very biased) take
I have been a nerd my whole life. When I was 4 years old, I used to pretend to read chapter books. When my older sister brought home math with letters, I couldn't wait until I was old enough to learn what it meant. These people whose reflex is to be threatened by knowledge are foreigners to me.
That instinct — to seek understanding rather than fear it — is what makes institutions like Harvard necessary, even when they're flawed. Not because they’re always right, but because they’re supposed to be places where we work through hard questions instead of papering over them with slogans and scapegoats. That’s what makes this moment feel so dangerous. It’s not just a policy dispute. It’s the rejection of inquiry itself. This is just revenge, disguised as reform.
Trump prefers being a paper tiger over being a president. He rules by vibes and mood swings instead of through the vast institutional empire he can direct. Does Harvard collaborate with US sanctioned paramilitary groups? I don’t know. I know if they do, I don’t want them to. I also know we have the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to investigate and enforce these sanctions. For all the allegations raised by the Select Committee on the CCP, nowhere was there a call for the OFAC, the group with the technical knowledge and expertise, to investigate Harvard’s dealings with foreign groups. They certainly aren’t releasing any evidence to support their accusations.
Was Harvard fostering an antisemitic environment and putting jewish students at risk? I don’t know, but if they were, I want those people punished. But protests at Harvard were not unique to Harvard. These events happened on many campuses. Harvard managed to keep their protests more contained, not involve law enforcement, and settled voluntarily. Sure, they backed off suspensions eventually, but they also had a president resign, weathered several faculty leaving in protests, were criticised for not discipling protesters, then faced backlash for trying to discipline protestors, and had a significant decline in donations to the school from donors sympathetic to both Israel and Palestinian causes.
Now, as the only institution acting as a bulwark against an administration high on its own farts and the capitulation of nearly everyone before they sent that letter to Dr. Alan Garber, Harvard will now have to deal with its research grants being frozen and its foreign students being targeted.
If there is a better answer here, I'm having trouble finding it. This is the fact of these matters though. Doing the right thing, so often, means to suffer in the short term. For this to turn around, bad things have to happen so people are reminded of why the rules were there in the first place. No rewards will be had until the damage is done and future generations can hopefully look back with cooler heads and hard lessons learned.
Framing effect is a cognitive bias where people’s decisions change depending on how a situation is presented. ↑
Ingroup bias is the practice of favoring members of your group over people not in your group. ↑
Confirmation bias is the tendency to focus on information that supports your existing beliefs. ↑