Updated August 3, 2025, at 11:06 a.m.
Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 has told faculty that a deal with the Trump administration is not imminent and denied that the University is considering a $500 million settlement, according to three faculty members familiar with the matter.
The University is seriously considering resolving its dispute with the White House through the courts rather than a negotiated settlement, Garber said, according to the three faculty members.
Harvard and the Trump administration restarted negotiations in June to restore billions of dollars in frozen federal research funding. In recent weeks, the government has reached settlements with several of Harvard’s peers — including Columbia University, which paid more than $200 million in exchange for access to federal funding.
The Trump administration has pushed Harvard to cut an even costlier deal, and the New York Times reported last Monday that the University is considering a settlement with a price tag of half a billion dollars.
But Garber, in a conversation with one faculty member, said that the suggestion that Harvard was open to paying $500 million is “false” and claimed that the figure was apparently leaked to the press by White House officials, according to the three faculty familiar with the conversation.
Talks between Harvard and White House officials have also been “on and off again,” according to the faculty. But in any discussions, Garber reportedly said, the University is treating academic freedom as nonnegotiable. Harvard officials have specifically said that appointing an outside monitor to oversee an agreement could be a red line, according to the New York Times, which noted the University was also reluctant to agree to a financial settlement.
Though Garber indicated a deal is far from certain, the situation could change drastically over the next weeks or even days as the Trump administration continues to push for concessions. Three similar settlements by Harvard’s Ivy League peers all came with little warning.
A Harvard spokesperson declined to comment but disputed the characterization of Garber’s remarks after publication.
Since President Donald Trump first announced in July that Harvard had returned to the negotiating table, a trickle of reports have sketched out what terms might be under consideration, ranging from a financial settlement to the establishment of a new conservative research institute. Trump himself has said for weeks that the parties are close to a deal, and many Harvard affiliates have come to see an agreement as inevitable.
Over the past week, deal opponents have taken an increasingly urgent tone in their pleas to Harvard — in some cases, shifting their messaging to focus on lines in the sand, rather than blanket opposition. Congressional Democrats threatened to launch an investigation into Harvard if it struck a deal. Students and alumni circulated another round of letters urging Harvard not to give up core principles of academic freedom. And groups of faculty wrote to Garber to lay out a set of “red lines” not to be crossed during negotiations.
Garber’s comments could allay the fears of critics who see the optics of a financial settlement as particularly noxious. Some have charged that a hefty payment to the Trump administration would amount to “extortion” or a contribution to “patronage slush funds.”
But many of the recent missives to Harvard’s leaders have focused on concerns that go beyond money.
Faculty groups identified several concessions they would see as particular areas of concern — including ceding control of faculty hiring and student admissions decisions, appointing a third-party monitor, or sharing extensive data about students and employees with the federal government.
All three deals the White House has struck with Harvard’s Ivy League peers have involved additional terms that critics say erode the universities’ academic freedom and independence.
Columbia, in addition to its $200 million payment, agreed to place regional studies programs under review and pay for an independent monitor to ensure the deal’s terms are met. Brown University agreed to adopt the Trump administration’s definition of “male” and “female” and provide additional demographic data to satisfy the government’s demand to eschew race-conscious admissions. And the University of Pennsylvania — which settled with Trump in July — struck through a set of swimming records set by a transgender student.
Harvard officials, including Garber, have consistently maintained that they will not agree to any deal that threatens the University’s academic freedom. But it remains unclear exactly what Garber sees as essential.
Columbia’s agreement with the White House included a line that said that the deal should not be understood to forfeit the university’s academic freedom — even though its terms have drawn intense criticism for the level of oversight that they could shift to external officials.
And Harvard has already taken steps that align with Trump’s agenda, including dismantling its diversity offices, cutting institutional ties to a Palestinian university, and centralizing disciplinary powers under Garber. On Monday, Harvard followed through on a commitment from January to establish partnerships with Israeli universities — a step that is likely to please the White House.
Some of the most controversial changes have directly affected academic programs: Harvard suspended its Religion, Conflict, and Peace Initiative and pushed out leaders at its Center for Middle Eastern Studies.
Amid reports that peer institutions had reached deals and that Harvard might soon follow suit, some anti-Trump voices had begun to worry that the University would abandon its lawsuits challenging the administration’s threats to its international students and federal funding. A lawyer for the American Association of University Professors, a faculty group which sued the administration alongside the University over funding freezes, asked a judge to not stay the AAUP’s lawsuit in the event that Harvard abandons its case early as part of a settlement.
But Garber’s comments signal that Harvard, which has notched several early wins in court, may see its legal battles through. It is possible that, even if the University plans to eventually settle, it will try to push the agreement until after U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs has ruled in its two lawsuits — especially since Harvard has good reason to believe that Burroughs will favor its arguments.
Burroughs granted Harvard two preliminary injunctions in its lawsuit challenging federal attempts to end international student enrollment at Harvard. And during a hearing for the University’s other lawsuit, she appeared skeptical of the government’s justification for its sweeping freeze on Harvard’s federal research dollars.
Trump has vowed to appeal any victories for Harvard — a stark reminder that ending the dispute through the courts will not be quick for the University. Even if Burroughs rules in the University’s favor, the cases will likely be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is still exploring new legal avenues to penalize Harvard.
—Staff writer William C. Mao can be reached at william.mao@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @williamcmao.
—Staff writer Veronica H. Paulus can be reached at veronica.paulus@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @VeronicaHPaulus.