New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Scientists Rally behind Harvard’s Stand against Trump Interference despite Risk to Research

The Trump administration has frozen billions in funding to the world’s richest university after Harvard refused to acquiesce to its demands

A gate stands in front of Harvard Yard on the closed Harvard University campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., on Monday, April 20, 2020.

Harvard University.

Adam Glanzman/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

After Harvard University pushed back against the Trump administration’s attempts to force the school to comply with sweeping political demands yesterday, the White House announced it would freeze more than $2.2 billion in Harvard’s funding—and threatened the university’s tax-exempt status.

What Happened at Harvard

The Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard on Friday that accused the university of what it claimed were civil rights violations and antisemitism and demanded unprecedented changes to the institution’s hiring and admissions practices. In response, lawyers representing Harvard sent a letter to Trump administration lawyers in which they said the university refused to comply with the demands and described them as going “beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The funding freeze jeopardizes vital research in public health and medicine, among other subjects. And Harvard-affiliated hospitals could bear the brunt of these effects. Nevertheless, Harvard’s pushback has garnered widespread praise from faculty members, scientists and public figures, including former president Barack Obama.

How Scientists Are Reacting

Some Harvard scientists expressed enthusiastic support for the institution’s response. “I’ve been waiting for a major university to take a stand like this. I am thrilled that mine did,” wrote Jeremy Faust, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and an emergency physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in his newsletter Inside Medicine.

When Scientific American reached out to Faust for comment, he said he couldn’t speak for Harvard. “What I can say on behalf of myself is that I had been seriously considering submitting my first federal grant proposals until November [2024]. After the election, I abandoned those plans,” he says. “Any thought of soldiering on was quickly put aside in January and February, when we witnessed the unprecedented viewpoint-driven censorship across [the Department of Health and Human Services], with certain disfavored views being literally punished with the sudden pulling of promised grant funding along ideological lines.”

Other Harvard scientists also praised the university’s recent actions. “I certainly don’t speak for the community, but I suspect that a lot of my colleagues are quite excited that Harvard has a spine,” said George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School, who leads synthetic biology at the Wyss Institute, to STAT.

Scientists at other institutions chimed in with support on social media. “First time you’ll hear this Yalie say: let’s go Harvard. Seriously: Yale stand up and lead,” wrote Gregg Gonsalves, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, in a post on Bluesky. Gonsalves was among about 900 faculty members who signed a letter to Yale’s president that called on the school to defend academic freedom.

Stanford University’s president and provost also issued a statement in support of Harvard’s actions. “Harvard’s objections to the letter it received are rooted in the American tradition of liberty, a tradition essential to our country’s universities, and worth defending,” read the statement, which was published in the Stanford Daily. “America’s universities are a source of great national strength, creating knowledge and driving innovation and economic growth,” it continued. “This strength has been built on government investment but not government control.”

Tanya Lewis was formerly senior desk editor for health and medicine at Scientific American. She wrote and edited stories for the website and print magazine on topics ranging from COVID to organ transplants. She also appeared on Scientific American’s podcast Science Quickly and wrote Scientific American’s weekly Health & Medicine newsletter. She held a number of positions over her nearly 10 years at Scientific American, including health editor, assistant news editor and associate editor at Scientific American Mind. Previously, she has written for outlets that include Insider, Wired, Science News and others. She has a degree in biomedical engineering from Brown University and one in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz. Follow her on Bluesky @tanyalewis.bsky.social

More by Tanya Lewis

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe