President Trump has claimed for months that his administration and Harvard University were close to a monumental deal to end his extraordinary pressure campaign against the university.
Even some at Harvard say that a deal appeared imminent this summer. But eight months after the rupture between Harvard and the government blew open, no deal has materialized.
“Negotiations are proceeding and productive,” said Madi Biedermann, a spokeswoman for the Education Department, in a statement to The New York Times this week.
The talks, though, have stumbled around arguments about where any money will go.
Harvard has been open to spending $500 million on work-force training programs. But Trump officials have recently argued that some of the money should be paid directly to the federal government, a proposal that has not been previously reported. The idea has caused Harvard officials to balk, according to six Harvard and Trump administration officials and others familiar with the negotiations. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.
The administration reached its latest deal, with Northwestern University, late last week. That leaves Harvard as one of only several schools in ongoing talks with the government, though it is the one president has made it clear he cares most about.
Harvard, where officials have been baffled by the roller coaster nature of a negotiation involving Mr. Trump, has repeatedly declined to comment on the talks. The prospect of an agreement has drawn broad criticism among faculty members, students and others who would see it as an act of capitulation. But some at Harvard believe an agreement is the only way for the university to secure its financial future.
The Times has been reporting since the spring on Mr. Trump’s campaign against Harvard and the legal, financial, political and academic stakes for both the administration and one of the nation’s leading universities.
Many people involved in the talks have refused to speak publicly. Some Trump officials do not want to speak openly about ongoing negotiations, out of fear of upsetting the president, and Harvard has been careful about dealing publicly with an unpredictable president. For all the talks, it remains unclear if or when the two sides will reach a deal.
Here is what we know about the prospects of one based on months of interviews.
Why haven’t they reached a deal?
Basically, money.
Mr. Trump has taken a keen interest in the financial terms of agreements with elite universities and settled on $500 million as the amount Harvard should pay. In talks this year, Harvard signaled to the administration that it was willing to pay that much, with an understanding that the funds would go toward work-force programs and not the federal government.
That commitment became the linchpin for the framework of a deal that emerged over the summer, weeks after Mr. Trump had asserted on social media that a final agreement would be announced “in the next week or so.”
But Trump administration hard-liners swooped in, arguing inside the White House that the terms were too favorable to Harvard. They pressed the case that at least some of the money should be classified as a fine, payable directly to the federal government. Three key figures have embraced the idea, all of them billionaires: Mr. Trump; the education secretary, Linda McMahon; and Stephen A. Schwarzman, the Blackstone chief executive and Harvard Business School alum, who has emerged as one of the university’s lead negotiators.
In their view, Harvard, which has an endowment worth about $57 billion, should consider a fine as a business decision — a payment to revive what had been a longstanding and close partnership between Washington and Cambridge.
But Harvard officials recoiled.
Some view a cash payment as tantamount to a bribe and not commensurate with the accusations about what government officials say the school did wrong.
Others think a “fine” would be seen essentially as an admission of guilt, a stigma that similarly stings. While Harvard officials have generally agreed that a deal might be necessary to end their fight with the administration, they have also sought to limit the backlash on campus, where many regard the idea of a settlement as a surrender and a betrayal.
The university has acknowledged missteps in its responses to antisemitism, including in the wake of Hamas’s 2023 attack on Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza. But the university had begun making changes to address criticism before Mr. Trump took office this year.
Moreover, Harvard leaders have been frustrated by the Trump administration’s inconsistent approach to the talks, with evolving demands from the government and a rotating mix of figures driving discussions.
Similar whiplash has shadowed the administration’s talks with other universities. Earlier this year, for example, Trump administration officials believed they were on the brink of a cash-free deal with Columbia University — until Mr. Trump himself decreed that the university would need to pay a $200 million fine if it wanted a cease-fire with Washington.
In the months since, a handful of other elite universities have cut deals that sometimes included fines, all well under $500 million.
How did the battle begin?
From the outset of Mr. Trump’s second administration, officials set a goal to remake higher education, which they portrayed as antisemitic and too liberal.
Harvard was among the Trump administration’s earliest targets. The university quickly decided to fight back in federal court, earning it wide acclaim in academia and among Democrats.
But the lawsuit also drew the scorn of Mr. Trump, who chafes at being challenged. The White House activated a whole-of-government attack on the university, squeezing it from every angle. Most consequentially, the administration moved to cut off billions of dollars in the research funding that has long been the lifeblood of elite American universities.
The pressure campaign included a range of investigations and a push to restrict international enrollment. With the university facing the prospect that Mr. Trump would remain in power until 2029, Harvard decided in the spring to try to negotiate a settlement.
Harvard won its case, so why is it negotiating?
Harvard won a major victory in September, when a federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration’s funding cuts were illegal. The government has not yet appealed the decision, and the research money has begun flowing to Harvard again.
The ruling heartened many Harvard supporters, who saw it as vindication of the university’s resistance.
But university leaders privately held a more cautious view of the opinion and were still convinced they needed to make a deal with the administration. They were pleased with the outcome but skeptical that it would permanently solve Harvard’s plight. Federal research funding is awarded in cycles, and some university leaders fear that Harvard will, in effect, be blacklisted by the administration.
The government has already taken steps to try to block Harvard from federal contracts.
After the ruling for Harvard in September, the university’s president, Alan M. Garber, said officials would “continue to assess the implications of the opinion, monitor further legal developments and be mindful of the changing landscape in which we seek to fulfill our mission.”
But, he added: “Our principles will guide us on the path forward. We will continue to champion open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas, and to build a community in which all can thrive.”
Will the two sides reach a deal?
Harvard officials worry about the financial, legal and reputational consequences of a yearslong fight with the federal government.
But university officials also see themselves as guardians of academic freedom and are sensitive to accusations that a deal would make the university — and them — look like sellouts. Those officials are facing tremendous pressure, on the campus and beyond, to hold the line against Mr. Trump, with many in higher education reasoning that if a university as mighty as Harvard caves, there is little hope for others that might want to resist federal pressure.
That approach is partly fueling Harvard’s various red lines, like its opposition to the word “fine” and its insistence that its independence be protected.
Ms. Biedermann, the Education Department spokeswoman, said in her statement that the government would not agree to a deal “that doesn’t profoundly improve the academic experience for Harvard’s students and faculty and remedy its egregious record of civil rights violations on campus.”
At the White House, which is facing other problems, Mr. Trump is eager to settle the matter, despite the dueling voices inside his administration.
But a deal may not guarantee lasting peace.
The administration has displayed a willingness to seek more concessions from universities and law firms that have reached settlements with the White House. And higher education officials, at Harvard and elsewhere, remain anxious about the Trump administration’s long-term strategy of cutting research funding.
Michael S. Schmidt is an investigative reporter for The Times covering Washington. His work focuses on tracking and explaining high-profile federal investigations.
The post Why Trump and Harvard Have Not Reached a Deal appeared first on New York Times.
