Harvard University and the Trump administration have restarted talks to potentially settle the acrimonious dispute that led President Trump to wage a far-reaching attack on the school and raised stark questions about the federal government’s place in higher education, according to three people briefed on the negotiations.
The discussions began again this week at a meeting in the White House. At the meeting, Harvard representatives showed White House officials a PowerPoint presentation that laid out measures the school has taken on antisemitism, viewpoint diversity and admissions.
In turn, the White House signaled other steps it would like for Harvard to take on those subjects and later sent a letter laying out conditions that could resolve the conflict, according to one of the people.
It is unclear how Harvard plans to respond to the letter. A university spokesman declined to comment on the matter.
Harvard representatives sought a meeting after other higher education leaders expressed hope that it — on behalf of academia — would re-engage with the administration. And Harvard’s outreach came after Education Secretary Linda McMahon publicly raised the prospect of negotiations with a university she routinely criticized. Harvard officials sensed an opening and suggested a briefing on steps the school has taken in recent years, two of the people said.
It is unclear how close both sides are to a potential deal and the exact terms any final agreement would entail. In a post on Truth Social, Mr. Trump said it was “very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so.”
Two people briefed on the discussions said it was highly unlikely a deal would be reached in the next week.
Harvard has been widely praised by Democrats, academics, its alumni and democracy advocates for fighting the Trump administration. But top Harvard officials, according to two people briefed on the matter, have become increasingly convinced in recent weeks that the school has little choice but to try to strike a deal with the White House.
The Harvard officials believe that if the university remains at odds with the administration that it is likely to become far smaller and less ambitious as Mr. Trump tries to keep pummeling it with funding cuts, federal investigations and limits on visas for international students.
Now, the school may find itself having to explain a deal with Mr. Trump.
One person close to Harvard said that while the school was back at the negotiating table, it would not compromise its values or its First Amendment rights in any deal with the administration.
Others briefed on the discussions laid out a broad framework for a possible pact. Under one approach being discussed, the administration would restore a major portion of the billions in federal research funding that it stripped from Harvard this spring. It would also cease pursuit of a range of legal actions against Harvard, including its quest to bar international students who make up about a quarter of the university’s enrollment, according to one of the people.
In exchange, Harvard would agree to take even more aggressive action than it already has to address issues such as antisemitism, race, and viewpoint diversity. The White House has pushed Harvard to make new commitments to change its admissions and hiring practices, one of the people close to the negotiations said.
Whatever the outcome, the White House’s direct involvement, one of the people said, signaled the seriousness of the talks.
The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing negotiations that were supposed to remain private.
Harvard’s decision to reopen talks with the administration is a sharp departure from how it has handled its battle with Mr. Trump since April. That month, the school cut off discussions with the administration after it received a letter — which the administration later claimed was accidentally sent — that made a series of extraordinary demands that the school believed would have compromised its independence.
The White House, according to one person briefed on the negotiations, hopes that an agreement with Harvard might serve as a framework for other elite colleges to strike deals with Mr. Trump. Other schools have been in discussions with the Trump administration about making deals that would keep their federal funding intact and avoid the president’s ire, two of the people said.
Word of the negotiations involving Harvard emerged soon after a federal judge in Boston blocked the government’s effort to bar international students from the university.
In a social media post on Friday, Mr. Trump hyped the prospects of an accord, asserting that “if a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be ‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC, and very good for our Country.”
Although the Trump administration has targeted other elite universities in recent months, its clash with Harvard has been the most bitter.
The nation’s oldest and wealthiest university, the administration contended, was a mismanaged well of bigotry that did not deserve any of the federal research money that has helped power American academia since around World War II. Although Harvard acknowledged assorted shortcomings, university leaders were stunned on April 11, when the Trump administration proposed broad power for the government over the school.
Among other conditions, the administration wanted Harvard to establish “merit based” hiring and admissions policies, and to see the influence of its faculty curbed. It sought a review for “viewpoint diversity,” the shutdown of any programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion, and an outside review to examine “those programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.”
The government also asked for Harvard to adjust its “recruitment, screening and admissions of international students,” audits of university data and reports “at least until the end of 2028” about the university’s compliance with the Trump administration’s conditions.
Before the letter, Harvard leaders had been receptive to reaching some kind of truce with the government, which had been sounding warnings about the university’s relationship with Washington. But school officials recoiled at the missive, publicly rejected it, lost billions in federal funding and then headed to court.
Negotiations collapsed, and the furor between the administration and Harvard only mounted. The government launched a volley of attacks against the university, including repeated efforts to block Harvard from enrolling international students, a threat against its tax-exempt status and a Justice Department investigation that invoked the False Claims Act, a law usually employed to target entities that try to defraud the government.
Meanwhile, the government kept cutting off research money and warning Harvard not to bother applying for funds in the future.
Harvard officials outwardly projected defiance and depicted their fight against the government as a righteous confrontation over academic independence. But inside the university, top leaders were surveying the landscape and seeing few optimal outcomes.
Even if the university prevailed in court, some came to believe, it could still be dogged by fights with an administration not scheduled to leave office until 2029. And the university’s $53 billion endowment was loaded with restrictions, leaving Harvard more financially vulnerable than a cursory glance at its books perhaps suggested.
Harvard leaders were keenly aware of perceptions of the government’s talks with Columbia University, which agreed to a range of Trump administration demands in its continuing quest for the resumption of $400 million in canceled grants and contracts. Columbia’s approach had been derided as capitulation.
But some inside Harvard have weighed whether a settlement now — after a furious fight with the government that included some interim legal victories for the university — would leave the school less exposed to criticism than it would have if it had cut a deal months ago.
Trump administration officials had been open to talks for weeks, even as the White House taunted and threatened the school with new actions.
Until recently, though, Harvard’s top board resisted talks. The members directed the school’s battalion of lawyers, many of them fixtures of conservative legal circles, not to engage with the government.
The calculus has since shifted, in parallel with a handful of courtroom successes for Harvard and Mr. Trump’s public venting that the university had drawn a favorable judge.
Any deal, though, is certain to be closely scrutinized by the university’s students, faculty members, donors and alumni.
In an interview in May, Lawrence H. Summers, a former Harvard president, was reluctant to assess any potential agreement before its terms were known.
He said, though, that “it would be a tragedy if Harvard resolved this in a way that gave support and encouragement to the idea of extralegal extortion.”
Until Friday, there had been no public signal of active discussions between Harvard and the government. The judge in Boston, Allison D. Burroughs, an appointee of President Barack Obama, has scheduled a hearing for July 21 to hear more extensive arguments in Harvard’s case about cuts to its research funding.
Mr. Trump himself has routinely bashed Harvard in public and in private. As he concluded lunch in the West Wing on April 1, he mused about his government blocking every cent it could from flowing to Harvard. Later on, he would assail Harvard online as “a JOKE” that “teaches Hate and Stupidity, and should no longer receive Federal Funds.” During the spring, he floated a revocation of Harvard’s tax-exempt status and an idea to give its research money to trade schools.
On Friday, though, after his government had resumed talks with the university, the president was far more generous in his assessment of Harvard’s leaders.
“They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right,” he wrote.
Michael S. Schmidt is an investigative reporter for The Times covering Washington. His work focuses on tracking and explaining high-profile federal investigations.
Alan Blinder is a national correspondent for The Times, covering education.
The post Harvard and Trump Restart Talks to Potentially End Bitter Dispute appeared first on New York Times.
