Last Updated on May 23, 2025 by ThePublic
These funding freezes aren’t about cutting ‘entitlements’ for rich universities, they’re stopping critical research that benefits all Americans. The $175 million frozen at Penn and $2.2 billion at Harvard fund projects like new medicines, AI breakthroughs, and national security tech, not fancy campus perks.
Universities compete for these grants through tough peer reviews, not automatic handouts. Cutting them stalls discoveries that drive our economy and health, hurting the public far more than it punishes any ‘elites.
These are federal grants, not general budgets. At Penn, the $175 million supported research on hospital infections, antiviral drugs, quantum computing, and chemical weapons defense.
Harvard’s $2.2 billion backed Alzheimer’s treatments, diabetes therapies, and AI innovations. These projects directly improve lives and security, not luxury dorms or sports teams.
Research drives innovation, jobs, and growth. NIH-funded projects alone supported 475,000 U.S. jobs and added $81 billion to GDP in 2023. Freezing Penn’s $175 million halted work across seven schools, risking layoffs and stalled discoveries. Harvard’s $2.2 billion cut threatens national leads in medicine and tech.
China and others are ramping up research while U.S. cuts slow us down. China’s R&D spending grew 10% annually (2015–2023), while U.S. cuts like these signal a serious reversal, per Science journal (2025) Penn’s faculty warned the $175 million freeze would “shut down science” in areas like public health and tech (March 2025 statements). Penn’s 2024 research output included 8,000+ projects, many NIH-funded, creating regional jobs.
President Garber said the $2.2 billion freeze threatens “national health and security” via stalled medical and AI work. Harvard’s research led to 1,200+ patents from 2019–2023, driving U.S. innovation.
Yet, Trump attended the New York Military Academy and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania (Ivy League), graduating with a B.S. in Economics in 1968 even though he has called Ivy League schools “woke” and elitist.
His apparent dislike for Ivy League schools like Harvard stems from their perceived liberal bias, failure to curb antisemitism during protests (e.g., Harvard’s Gaza protests), and elitism that clashes with his populist image.
Actions like freezing Harvard’s $2.2 billion in funds reflect political strategy, personal resentment, and cultural warfare, though he spares Wharton to protect his own legacy.
Yet Wharton also had the same protests as Harvard and other he’s targeted along the way. Yet, Trump rarely criticizes Wharton directly, often praising it to highlight his own credentials.
Trump did however target Penn for a freeze, but it had nothing to do with protests but rather the freeze was explicitly tied to its past policies on transgender athletes, not campus protests directly.
The White House cited Penn’s “policies forcing women to compete with men in sports,” specifically referencing transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, who competed on Penn’s women’s team in 2021–2022 and won an NCAA title in the 500-yard freestyle.
A senior official called it an “immediate proactive action” to review discretionary funding, not tied to an ongoing Title IX investigation but to Penn’s historical allowance of Thomas’s participation.
The White House didn’t clarify the freeze’s legal grounding, raising concerns about due process. Penn insisted it complied with NCAA and Ivy League rules during Thomas’s era and now follows the 2025 bans, arguing the freeze punishes past actions under outdated policies.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania called it “punitive and discriminatory,” suggesting legal challenges, though Penn hadn’t sued by April 2025, unlike potential Harvard responses.
Penn’s freeze, like Harvard’s, seems less about policy violations and more about political leverage. Lia Thomas last competed in 2022, and Penn complied with 2025 NCAA bans, making the retroactive punishment questionable.
Harvard’s antisemitism claims also stretched to protests where free speech blurred with harassment, suggesting Trump picks high-profile issues to rally his base.
Why does Trump target Ivies despite attending Wharton. The Penn freeze indirectly hits Wharton, his alma mater, but avoids naming it, focusing on Penn’s athletics. This protects his personal legacy while still attacking Ivy League “elites,” a balancing act evident in his softer stance on Wharton versus Harvard or Columbia.
Trump’s funding freezes on Penn and Harvard stem more from his ego and political maneuvering than any clear, consistent set of rules. His personal resentment toward elite universities, need for control, and desire to rally his base drive these cuts, using vague or retroactive justifications like antisemitism or transgender policies.
The freezes lack transparent legal grounding or uniform standards, hitting research critical to America’s health, security, and economy for symbolic wins rather than principled enforcement.
The Harvard freeze escalated after President Alan Garber called demands “unacceptable violations” of autonomy, likely goading Trump to flex authority. No clear rule tied the cuts to antisemitism at all, just vague Title VI claims, showing ego over process.
Columbia ($400 million) and other Ivies faced cuts with varying justifications, but all share liberal profiles. This pattern suggests political vendettas, not a standardized process, as no public criteria explains why Penn got $175 million versus Harvard’s $2.2 billion frozen.
Clear rules require public processes, like hearings or reports. The White House didn’t release detailed justifications for either freeze, only press statements. Penn faculty got abrupt “stop work orders” (March 25, 2025), and Harvard’s Garber learned of cuts via announcement, not negotiation, unlike regulatory actions with due process.
Trump’s obvious political strategy includes diverting attention from all of the recent domestic challenges, like economic inflation and a myriad of legal battles facing the administration. Freezing $2.2 billion at Harvard over protests shifts focus from Gaza policy debates, while Penn’s $175 million cut sidesteps questions about research funding’s economic value.
Trump’s massive and easily bruised ego, resenting Ivy League defiance and craving control, is what drives the Penn and Harvard freezes, alongside politics to rally conservatives and distract from issues.
He targets Harvard ($2.2 billion) for protests and Penn ($175 million) for a 2022 swimmer, despite their compliance, using inconsistent, retroactive justifications, not clear rules like legal findings.
No transparent process links the cuts, showing personal and political motives over standards, risking research that boosts America’s health and economy all for the sake of a bully.