The Trump administration is expected to formally sever its remaining federal financial ties with Harvard University this week, directing the cancellation of roughly $100 million in government contracts — the latest move in a mounting and bitter standoff between the federal government and one of the nation’s most prestigious academic institutions.
According to documents first obtained by The New York Times, the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) plans to issue a directive to federal agencies on Tuesday ordering them to terminate all active contracts with Harvard. Agencies have until June 6 to submit lists of affected agreements and identify alternative vendors for future work.
The cancellations would affect contracts across nine federal departments, including relatively modest deals such as a $49,800 research project with the National Institutes of Health examining coffee consumption, and a $25,800 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agreement for executive-level training sessions. While small in scope, these contracts are part of a broader pattern of increasing hostilities.
This move follows the Trump administration’s earlier freeze of $3.2 billion in grants and contracts and a controversial attempt to bar Harvard from enrolling international students. Those efforts were temporarily halted by a federal judge after Harvard filed a legal challenge accusing the administration of retaliatory overreach.
Visa Program Battle
The legal conflict intensified after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded in April that Harvard submit detailed records of alleged “criminality and misconduct” involving foreign students. Noem warned that failure to comply would result in revocation of Harvard’s participation in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which is essential for the university’s ability to host students on F-1 and J-1 visas.
Last week, DHS informed Harvard that the university was being removed from the SEVP due to what it described as “pro-terrorist conduct” on campus — a vague claim that the university strongly denies. In response, Harvard filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the administration’s actions amounted to a “campaign of retribution” for refusing political demands that include banning students perceived as “hostile to American values” and conducting ideological audits of faculty and students.
Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order blocking the SEVP ban and has scheduled a hearing for Thursday to determine whether that protection should be extended.
High Stakes for Harvard
With international students comprising 27% of its student body, Harvard officials say the consequences of losing the ability to host foreign students would be severe. In court filings, Harvard President Alan Garber described the visa revocation threat as “devastating,” citing both the academic and financial harm it would cause.
“The administration’s actions not only undermine our mission but threaten to destabilize the very foundation of international academic cooperation,” Garber said in a public statement earlier this month.
Broader Political Context
The administration’s stance toward Harvard has become a symbol of its broader crackdown on elite institutions that it accuses of liberal bias. Tensions escalated after Harvard refused to comply with a series of demands issued last year, including conducting a “viewpoint diversity audit” and submitting quarterly updates on student political affiliations.
Legal experts say the administration’s moves against Harvard, if upheld, could set a precedent for similar actions against other universities that receive federal funding. Critics have warned that these actions appear aimed at punishing ideological nonconformity rather than addressing legitimate national security or legal concerns.
What Comes Next
If the GSA follows through with the cancellations, Harvard will be stripped of virtually all remaining federal contracts — a rare and potentially unprecedented step in the modern relationship between government and higher education.
As the court prepares to hear arguments this week, the legal, political, and academic implications of this confrontation are likely to resonate far beyond the Ivy League campus — raising pressing questions about the role of the federal government in policing academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
