Education Secretary McMahon barred Harvard from new federal grants, demanding governance overhaul and DEI compliance

On May 5, 2025, Education Secretary Linda McMahon sent a letter to Harvard President Alan Garber formally announcing that the university would receive no new federal grants until it met the Trump administration's demands for governance changes, revised admissions policies, faculty and student viewpoint audits, and anti-DEI compliance. The action was distinct from the administration's April 14, 2025 freeze of approximately $2.2 billion in existing Harvard grants: where the freeze halted current funding, the May 5 letter established a prospective embargo barring Harvard from any future federal grant funding until the university capitulated. McMahon accused Harvard of enrolling foreign students who "showed contempt for the U.S." and declared the school had "made a mockery of this country's higher education system."

Harvard sued the administration over the April 14 grant freeze on April 22, 2025, arguing the action was unlawful and retaliatory. The university characterized the May 5 letter in the same terms — as retaliation for the lawsuit — and called the administration's demands an attempt to impose "unprecedented and improper control" with "chilling implications for higher education." Legal scholars and accreditation bodies argued that the demands, which included university governance restructuring and admissions policy changes, violated institutional autonomy and First Amendment protections. The federal research grant embargo did not extend to federal financial aid for students (Pell grants and student loans).

The May 5 action is one step in a documented escalation campaign: the April 14 freeze halted existing grants; this letter prospectively barred new ones; subsequent actions included additional grant terminations in May, GSA contract cancellations in late May, and a visa ban on Harvard international students in June. The action is an instance of the administration using federal funding authority as a coercive instrument against a university that filed litigation challenging prior actions.