In April of 2025, the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard’s administration making a series of demands, including that they cancel diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and hire an auditor to evaluate ideological diversity among faculty. After Harvard publicly refused to comply, the Trump administration froze over $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to the university. Soon afterwards, when Harvard declined to share information about international students with F-1 visas, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem threatened to revoke the university’s ability to enroll foreign students. In response, Harvard filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration. Since then, Harvard and the federal government have remained locked in a battle of wills as the litigation escalates through the courts. But while Harvard has been acclaimed by some for its defiance, others have pointed out that the institution appears to be quietly pursuing a policy of preemptive compliance, as suggested by the consolidation of diversity offices and similar moves.

On Monday, September 22, stakeholders from across the university convened at the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics to attend “Independence for Sale? Unpacking Harvard’s Response to the Trump Administration,” a dialogue event organized in collaboration with the Intellectual Vitality Initiative. Some participants questioned whether the university ought to negotiate with the Trump administration at all, arguing that members of the Harvard community should be willing to make sacrifices to safeguard the institution’s freedoms. Others worried about the harm that the federal government could inflict on Harvard, particularly for STEM fields that are reliant on federal funding. The conversation became philosophical as participants began contemplating the decline of popular trust in higher education and its role in the institution’s predicament. One participant wondered, if Harvard exists to serve the public good, does the public have a legitimate interest in how it operates? Democracy was also a recurrent theme. Would cutting a deal through negotiation be the most democratic option? Does institutional democracy necessitate pluralism?

Some attendees felt that the current moment calls for introspection, contending that ideological homogeneity and self-censorship are valid concerns that should be addressed. Additionally, some participants observed that past governmental directives were often complied with. They wondered if there was something materially different about the Trump administration’s demands, worrying that Harvard’s response was prejudiced by an aversion to the administration’s political ideology.

At the end of the session, participants expressed a sense of relief at having finally gathered to collaboratively explore this pressing issue. The general consensus was that increased transparency and accountability are crucial to ensure that the Harvard community is well-informed about the developing situation.