Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Sunday, August 23, 2026

Jeffries and Kushner Meet Privately as Midterm Attacks Fly - The New York Times

Jeffries and Kushner Meet Privately as Midterm Attacks Fly

"President Trump’s son-in-law and the man in line to be speaker of a Democratic-led House discussed how Democrats and the administration could work together.











Jared Kushner, left, and Representative Hakeem Jeffries, right. 
Nathan Howard for The New York Times, Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times

Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, met privately in recent weeks with Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and top outside adviser, and discussed potential areas of common ground, according to five people with knowledge of the meeting.

The rare engagement was held in a private space in New York City, offered up by a mutual friend of the two men, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting and a third who was briefed on it. They and others were granted anonymity to discuss a meeting about which they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Through aides, neither man would comment on the session, which was described by one person with knowledge of it as a broad conversation on a range of topics. Still, its timing underscored that those around Mr. Trump were well aware of the likelihood of a Democratic-led House, and trying to foster as much of a working relationship as possible before any change. Mr. Jeffries is in line to be the speaker, were Democrats to win the majority.

Democrats and the president have been savaging each other on the campaign trail with increasing fury as the midterm elections approach, and as Republicans are fighting to retain their thin House and Senate majorities.

Mr. Trump has called Mr. Jeffries a “thug,” and at a May campaign event referred to him as a “low IQ” person who had inspired him to deride Democrats as the “Dumocrats.” Mr. Jeffries routinely suggests that Mr. Trump is not only extreme but corrupt, vowing that Democrats would “hold the crooks accountable” if they won control.

The private get-together was described by one of the people as a catch-up for Mr. Kushner and Mr. Jeffries. The two men have stayed in touch since they worked together on a criminal justice bill midway through Mr. Trump’s first term.

During the recent meeting, the pair discussed housing, immigration and the high cost of living as potential areas of common ground. Mr. Kushner suggested that Mr. Jeffries should meet with the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles, two people with knowledge of the meeting said.

The likelihood of any compromises between the White House and Democrats on those issues seems remote.

Mr. Trump this year refused to sign a bipartisan housing bill in part because he said it was “Warren centric,” referring to Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, its top Democratic champion. And he has repeatedly expressed openness to a deal with Democrats on immigration, only to back away from any such agreement. He successfully lobbied Republicans to abandon a bipartisan border security bill in 2024.

White House officials and an aide to Mr. Kushner did not respond to messages seeking comment.

In a statement, Mr. Jeffries did not acknowledge the meeting, but suggested that the only way Democrats would cut deals with the administration would be if Republicans were willing to come their way on cost-of-living issues, his party’s top priority.

“Throughout this Congress, Republicans have adopted a my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing that has failed the American people,” he said.

He added: “In every conversation that we have with the Trump administration, we will continue to make it explicitly clear that the affordability crisis is not a hoax, and nothing short of transformational policy change is acceptable. We are fighting for an affordable America. The question is whether Republicans will join us.”

Mr. Kushner, who worked as a senior West Wing adviser in the president’s first term, is no longer formally part of Mr. Trump’s government. He has been deeply involved in the president’s efforts to resolve the war with Iran that Mr. Trump began, to enforce a cease-fire in Gaza and to bring an end to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He and Mr. Jeffries also met last year, according to two people with knowledge of that conversation.

The meeting came as nearly all polls revealed Republicans to be at a disadvantage in the midterms, and showed how members of Mr. Trump’s inner circle were digesting what a Democratic majority next year could look like.

Should that happen, Mr. Jeffries would be under intense pressure from progressives to use his power as a check on Mr. Trump, including through aggressive oversight.

Mr. Kushner is frequently consulted by a number of Mr. Trump’s advisers, and he has told people that if anything bipartisan is to get done with Congress, Mr. Jeffries is the most serious person among Democratic leaders. Ms. Wiles, he has said, is the most serious inside the West Wing.

But with Republicans in control of both chambers, Mr. Trump has mostly steered around Congress in his second term, trampling its powers and prerogatives. He has faced little pushback from G.O.P. leaders.

Should Democrats win the House, Mr. Jeffries would have to balance the need to keep the government funded with Democratic calls to defy Mr. Trump at every turn, and possible pleas to impeach him for a third time.

Mr. Jeffries and Mr. Trump have danced around questions about what their relationship could look like next year should Democrats take control.

“I think he’s a nice guy,” Mr. Trump told Punchbowl News in a recent interview, when asked about Mr. Jeffries. “I’d probably get along with him very well.”

Mr. Trump pointed to a meeting with Mr. Jeffries in the Oval Office last fall — the only one they have had in his second term — and described it as a positive one.

In fact, during that meeting, which was billed as a bid to avert a government shutdown, the president positioned hats with a “Trump 2028” logo directly in front of Mr. Jeffries and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, trolling the Democrats with the suggestion that he would run for a third term in violation of the Constitution.

Afterward, Mr. Trump posted an A.I.-generated meme of a mustachioed Mr. Jeffries wearing a sombrero, drawing an angry response from the House minority leader, who called the image racist and dared Mr. Trump to insult him next time “to my face.”

Soon after the meeting, the government shutdown began.

This year, Mr. Jeffries has remained noncommittal about any plans to pursue a third impeachment of the president, and has not discussed publicly what oversight could look like if his party were to win the majority.

“We’ve not ruled anything in and not ruled anything out in terms of accountability,” he told The New York Times in an interview last month, noting that his focus would be on forcing out major Trump officials.

“We’ve got to make sure we continue to get rid of toxic Trump cabinet secretaries,” he said. “Pete Hegseth, in my view, should be next on the list.”

Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent for The Times, reporting on President Trump.

Annie Karni is a congressional correspondent for The Times."

Jeffries and Kushner Meet Privately as Midterm Attacks Fly - The New York Times

The Data Center Backlash Bursts Into the Midterms - The New York Times

The Data Center Backlash Bursts Into the Midterms

"With opposition to the centers mounting, many Democrats and a growing number of Republicans are campaigning against them.

By Shane Goldmacher

Shane Goldmacher is a national political correspondent. He reviewed television and digital ads airing in races across the country about data centers for this piece.

The fight over data centers is suddenly at the epicenter of the midterm elections.

One new ad in Texas begins with someone typing into a chatbot, “Why is my electric bill going up?” Another in Ohio blames one of the state’s Republican senators for a proliferation of data centers, calling them “a total scam.” And in top House battlegrounds in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the Democratic challengers are all running ads against the server warehouses powering the artificial intelligence boom.

Data centers have become unlikely fault-lines in the broader fight over an A.I. revolution that is remaking the global economy and threatening to disrupt the job market. Now politicians are racing to tap into the backlash — or inoculate themselves — as political strategists in both parties described the issue as an unusually fast-moving force that is already reshaping races for the House, the Senate and governor’s mansions.

“It’s very much a bottom up, organic movement,” said Anna Greenberg, a veteran Democratic pollster, who said that while people’s views on data centers were largely tied to how close they live to them, the facilities were also becoming symbols of the excesses of Silicon Valley.

“Data centers are a physical manifestation,” she said. “Billionaires are building them, and it feeds into all of the big tech skepticism that is there. It’s very symbolic of everybody’s issues with A.I.”

There are signs that the emerging data center debate is scrambling the usual partisan divisions.

So far, Democrats have chiefly been the ones racing to harness voter anger about data centers over rising electricity prices, water use and mistrust of the tech sector. They aim to punish Republicans for cozying up to industry by approving many of these projects.

But in recent weeks, a growing number of Republican candidates have scrambled to shield themselves from any fallout. They have voiced skepticism about data centers, despite President Trump’s full-throated cheerleading for the A.I. industry and fears among party leaders in Washington that blocking construction of the centers could slow the economy and make the United States less competitive against China.

Some Republicans are now using “data center” as an epithet, and casting themselves as the real opponents of corporate tax breaks and unfettered construction. Last week, Mike Rogers, the Republican running for Senate in the key swing state of Michigan, said that he supports a one-year moratorium on data center construction.

Polls show a revolt brewing against data centers. A Gallup poll conducted in March showed 71 percent opposed local construction of the centers, and a summer survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania showed that the number of people opposing new data centers in their areas had risen by 12 percentage points since February and March.

The fallout has been so swift that in some races, including the governor’s contests in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida, both Democrats and Republicans are airing television ads about data centers.

On Wednesday, a remarkable memo from the National Republican Senatorial Committee warned that data center politics was endangering Senator Jon Husted of Ohio, a Republican. His challenger, Sherrod Brown, the state’s former Democratic senator, has aired millions of dollars of ads, calling Mr. Husted “the face of data centers in Ohio.”

“More than any other thing in this race, data centers are the anchor hanging around Husted’s neck,” the memo said.

Thumbnail of page 1

The one-page document, which was earlier reported by Axios, amounted to a desperate plea for the well-heeled industry to finance an advertising campaign — lest a Husted loss serve as “a cautionary lesson” for politicians elsewhere.

Zac McCrary, a Democratic pollster, said that opposing data centers offered Democrats a rare chance to make inroads in rural areas and small towns that are resisting the developments.

“It absolutely shakes up the snow globe on the partisan coalitions in a part of the world where Republicans have been dominant,” he said. “It’s one of the few issues today that does not immediately code as red or blue, left or right.”

In Florida, Representative Byron Donalds, the Republican nominee for governor, spent more than $2 million on one ad in his primary, vowing to “protect” the state from data centers that “jack up utility rates.” In the ad, he tried to cast that position as standing with Mr. Trump, whose administration sought to blunt some of the opposition earlier this year by proposing a “ratepayer protection pledge,” in which data centers promise not to drive up electricity costs.

His Democratic opponent in the fall, David Jolly, said that “we don’t want crime or data centers in our neighborhoods” in one of his first ads of the general election.

In a sign of how top-of-mind data centers have become, Mr. Donalds brought up the topic unprompted at an event last week in Naples, Fla. “Listen, I know people have concerns,” he said. “I’ve seen the polling. But leadership isn’t just looking at polling.”

He then tried to thread the needle between selling the importance of artificial intelligence for the United States’ competitive future and addressing boiling anger at local data centers. “I don’t want it near your home, just like I don’t want it near my home,” Mr. Donalds said.

Mr. Jolly’s position is less complicated. In an interview on Thursday, he said Florida should impose a moratorium on data center construction until the full impacts could be studied.

The fierceness of the mounting opposition has startled some in the tech sector.

“This is a powder keg,” warned Chamath Palihapitiya, a public-facing venture capital investor, in a post on X this week, responding to the dire warning in the N.R.S.C. memo. He wrote that the A.I. industry had “failed miserably in doing the basics” of selling itself.

Political strategists and pollsters in both parties said that voters have linked the facilities to concerns over higher electricity prices, water use, the fate of farmlands and general fears about the advent of artificial intelligence and big tech.

“They didn’t do a good enough job explaining anything,” Ryan James Girdusky, a Republican political strategist and podcaster, said of the industry.

In Texas, the Democratic candidate for Senate, James Talarico, and for governor, Gina Hinojosa, have held recent events about data centers, accusing their Republican rivals of pocketing data center donations while backing expansions.

“Texans are mad,” Ms. Hinojosa said in an interview. “It is hard to convey what feels like an invasion by data centers with no rules, no laws to protect Texas. They’re popping up everywhere.”

It was her advertisement that featured a chatbot being asked about the cause of rising electricity prices. The answer it provides? Blaming Gov. Greg Abbott and data centers.

Even before that ad, Mr. Abbott, a Republican, had been shifting his stance on data centers. Less than a year ago, Mr. Abbott bragged that Google’s $40 billion investment made Texas “the epicenter of A.I. development,” bringing both construction jobs and tax revenues.

But this summer he announced new standards for data centers on water use and electricity and called to end some tax incentives. Earlier this month he directed the state’s utility commission to audit all data centers seeking permits before they could move forward.

“Data center growth cannot come at the expense of Texans’ livelihoods,” said Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Abbott is hardly the only politician pivoting.

Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, a potential Democratic candidate for president in 2028, had been a booster of A.I. investments. In June 2025, Mr. Shapiro said he was “proud” of Amazon’s $20 billion data center investment, bragging it would be the largest private sector investment in the state’s history.

On Tuesday, Mr. Shapiro signed an executive order imposing what he called the “strictest guardrails in the nation” to stop “predatory developers.”

“I’ve heard loud and clear from the people of Pennsylvania,” said Mr. Shapiro, who is up for re-election this year.

Now Mr. Shapiro has started airing a television ad attacking his Republican challenger, Stacy Garrity, as the “number one fan of data centers.” Ms. Garrity has her own ad hitting Mr. Shapiro for “data centers in our backyards,” but her campaign can afford only a small fraction of the airtime.

Garrity for PA, via AdImpact
Shapiro for Pennsylvania, via AdImpact

Another Republican candidate for governor running on data center politics is Representative Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin, who has attacked his Democratic rival as “Data Center David Crowley.” Mr. Crowley narrowly won the nomination over a democratic socialist, Francesca Hong, who had demanded a data center moratorium.

Neither Mr. Crowley nor Mr. Tiffany has called for a moratorium.

Mr. Crowley has preferred to let local communities decide, with a number of guardrails and restrictions. Mr. Tiffany, who called data centers “exciting new technology” just a few months ago, is now calling for a repeal of tax incentives.

In Michigan, William Lawrence, a progressive activist, rode an anti-data center message to win the Democratic nomination in a key Michigan House seat this month and then immediately made a general election ad targeting Representative Tom Barrett, the Republican incumbent, on the issue.

Mr. Barrett campaigned on Tuesday with Speaker Mike Johnson in Michigan, who warned that, while “community concerns” needed to be accounted for, “a broad moratorium against data centers is kind of a dangerous prospect right now.”

The next day Mr. Barrett began airing a new data center ad of his own, in which he claimed that “I stood up to my own party and voted against giving your tax dollars to data centers.”

In an interview, Mr. Lawrence, who supports a moratorium, called the ad “outrageous” and said voters would not be satisfied with half measures. Data center opposition, he said, was “number one in terms of intensity” in the district.

“It’s bringing together three-time Trump voters, anti-vaxxers, environmentalists, independents, nonvoters, people who are in our cities, people who are in the rural areas,” Mr. Lawrence said. “And it’s bringing together all these people because none of us trust big tech to do right by our communities.”

Patricia Mazzei and Ruth Igielnik contributed reporting."

The Data Center Backlash Bursts Into the Midterms - The New York Times

Saturday, August 22, 2026

Former Atlanta mayors discuss what the city's history could mean for the future | Extended Interview

 

Carney Stands Up to Trump in Trade War Despite the Risks

 

Carney Stands Up to Trump in Trade War Despite the Risks

 Summary

“Mark Carney walked away from U.S. trade talks and promised dollar-for-dollar retaliation against 50 percent tariffs on $20 billion in goods. He rejected a deal with permanent tariffs, pledging support for affected industries while pursuing new partnerships.

Canada’s prime minister walked away from what he thought was a bad trade deal with the United States. Many Canadians are behind him, but it will be costly.

Prime Minister Mark Carney, wearing a blue shirt and blazer, speaks into a microphone as he gestures with one hand.
Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada said his country would retaliate against U.S. tariffs “dollar for dollar.”Sammy Kogan/The Canadian Press, via Associated Press

Sign up for the Canada Letter Newsletter  Back stories and analysis from our Canadian correspondents, plus a handpicked selection of our recent Canada-related coverage.

On Friday night, Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada did something that few other world leaders before him have dared to do.

After days of intense trade negotiations with the United States, with less than an hour to go on a midnight deadline for a new round of tariffs from the Trump administration, Mr. Carney instructed his negotiators to walk away.

Then, he announced that once 50 percent tariffs came into effect on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods, he would order retaliatory tariffs on the United States “dollar for dollar.”

In a statement, Mr. Carney said he had gone into the trade talks in good faith, seeking “the best deal for Canadians” but “never a deal at any price or on any deadline.”

By walking away, Mr. Carney chose a road that no major U.S. ally has taken: With his country’s economy on the line, he stood up to President Trump and refused to accept the administration’s offer of a new trade relationship with tariffs permanently baked in. Britain, the European Union and other major U.S. trading partners have agreed to smaller deals that have been volatile and often left them worse off.

The collapse of the talks came after Mr. Trump declared on Tuesday that the deal was practically done.

Mr. Carney never echoed that. Over the week, as negotiators spent long hours in Washington huddled in the office of the U.S. trade representative, Mr. Carney appeared optimistic but insisted that there was still work to be done.

Until there wasn’t.

Each side now claims that the other introduced new or unreasonable demands at the last minute — the kind of finger-pointing that is common when trade talks fall apart.

Make no mistake, Mr. Carney has a lot to lose.

Canada, which is closely integrated with the United States and relies on it for defense, is heavily dependent on trade with its superpower neighbor. In his statement, Mr. Carney acknowledged the cost of his choice for many Canadians by saying that his government would work to support industries and companies affected by the new tariffs.

It will also be costly for U.S. residents, who have been paying for Mr. Trump’s tariff policies through higher prices that have also been driven by the war in Iran and spiraling oil costs.

But on Friday, Mr. Carney appeared resolved to shoulder the costs of his decision. And he has risked Mr. Trump’s ire before.

In a speech in Davos, Switzerland, in January, he described a new era in which the United States was no longer a guarantor of stability and where middle powers like Canada have to unite to survive. The speech — and its enthusiastic global reception — angered Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump has also been riled by Mr. Carney’s outreach to China, which led to a narrow but significant trade agreement this year; by Canadian provinces’ persistence on banning the sale of U.S. liquor; and by the Carney government’s retaliatory measures against the United States for its broad, devastating tariffs on core Canadian industries.

Since he rose to lead Canada last year, Mr. Carney has put in motion a plan to help his country survive Mr. Trump’s presidency and, in the long run, thrive apart from the United States. One of his favorite lines is that “nostalgia is not a policy,” and he has told everyone who will listen that there is no going back to the old relationship with the United States — a close and familial, if lopsided, bond.

Instead, Mr. Carney has been traveling to secure new partnerships in Asia and Europe, a generational shift away from economic dependence on the United States, although that is unlikely to bear fruit fast enough to cushion the blow of the breakdown of the two countries’ relationship.

It’s likely that Mr. Trump will not take kindly to Mr. Carney’s trade decision. Just before beginning his second term, Mr. Trump said he was willing to inflict “economic pain” on Canada to get what he wanted. He has repeatedly expressed a desire to make Canada the 51st state, describing it as little more than a vassal that “lives because of the United States.”

But Mr. Carney’s vision for Canada, with a surprising assist from Mr. Trump’s needling, has ignited a wave of patriotism. Going into the trade talks, more than half of Canadians — many more than those who voted for Mr. Carney — said they wanted him to give nothing away.

Several premiers of different political stripes expressed their support for Mr. Carney after his decision. Doug Ford, a conservative who leads Ontario, cheered him on. David Eby, the progressive premier of British Columbia, said, “We didn’t ask for this, but we’ll keep fighting for as long as it takes.”

Not everyone is enthusiastic. Danielle Smith, the conservative premier of Alberta, who has good relations with the MAGA movement, was more circumspect and urged Mr. Carney to return to the negotiating table. Canada’s industry is aghast with the prolonged turbulence and uncertainty that Mr. Trump’s trade war against Canada, and Mr. Carney’s refusal to submit, are causing.

But there is little doubt that Mr. Carney will also be cheered, at home and abroad, for doing what he thought was best for his country, and for saying, in his Friday statement, that “we will not allow any nation to determine our future.”

Friday, August 21, 2026

DOJ Whistleblower Confirms “Antisemitism” Probes Against Universities Were Sham Investigations

 

How Harvard’s Epic Fight With Trump Is Costing the University

 

How Harvard’s Epic Fight With Trump Is Costing the University

 Summary

“Federal funding to Harvard from the National Institutes of Health has slowed, with awards down from prior years despite court victories. The Trump administration uses delays and rejections, prompting layoffs and cuts while Harvard continues litigation.

The federal government has slowed Harvard’s funding, despite the university’s legal victories. The conflict is forcing hard choices on campus.

A classical brick building with columns and many windows. Bare trees frame the scene, with people on the steps and patches of snow on the ground.
The Trump administration has found new ways of trying to pressure Harvard to comply with its wishes.Lucy Lu for The New York Times

One of Harvard University’s biggest federal funding streams is down sharply, according to a New York Times analysis of government data.

The declines have persisted even after a federal judge forced the Trump administration to reverse drastic cuts to the university last year.

The funding, from the National Institutes of Health, currently lags about 18 percent behind the average pace of grants during the Biden administration, the analysis shows.

Last year, Harvard successfully sued the Trump administration, after the government announced it had frozen more than $2.2 billion in 2025, from multiple federal agencies.

But unlike then, when Trump officials made a public spectacle out of announcing the cuts, the N.I.H. is mainly delaying, reducing or rejecting grant requests, often leaving researchers and university leaders in the dark about what is happening. 

The reduction appears to be the latest front in the Trump administration’s on-again, off-again war with Harvard and other elite universities. It is a new, more subtle tactic that is harder to fight in court, but that could be just as damaging if cuts and uncertainty build.

The Trump administration has targeted a number of the nation’s elite universities, accusing them of tolerating antisemitism and pursuing racial diversity in ways that flout the law, among other criticisms. Harvard — the country’s wealthiest university — has been one of the most frequent targets of federal officials.

As the Trump administration has pulled multiple levers to try to bring Harvard and other schools to heel, Harvard has often pushed back. It was the first institution to sue the Trump administration, has won in court on a number of occasions and has not reached a settlement with the federal government, as other prominent schools have done.

Now, however, the university faces cuts that may be harder to counter. Last September, a judge ruled that the administration had improperly cut off funding to Harvard when it ended all of its grants in 2025, finding that the government had violated Harvard’s First Amendment rights.

But in the ruling, the judge suggested that there were lawful means the government could pursue if it wanted to restrict Harvard’s money, should it choose to.

That is what is happening.

Through June 30 of this fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, the N.I.H. provided Harvard 309 awards worth a total of $200 million. The amount is down from an average of roughly 440 awards worth $246 million for the same nine-month period in 2021-2024, according to the latest data available.

Harvard is still one of the largest recipients of N.I.H. funding, though it is far behind the top grantees such as Johns Hopkins, the University of Michigan and Yale. Other major research universities have also seen reductions in N.I.H. funding.

Though N.I.H. support has slowed compared to the Biden years, the 2026 awards are outpacing last year, when Harvard’s funding was frozen. By the same point in 2025, N.I.H. funding to Harvard was stalled at 201 grants worth $94 million.

In recent months, Harvard’s individual schools have laid off staff. The leadership of the university’s largest division, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, reported in an email to the division on Aug. 14 that 165 of its staff positions had been eliminated in a layoff and restructuring. The job cuts were aimed at reducing a major deficit.

Carrie Barbash, an organizer and former president of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers, said the final number of layoffs may change as some staff members whose jobs were eliminated consider moving into some newly designed roles.

The current grant slowdown is not taking place evenly across Harvard. The university’s Chan School of Public Health is heavily dependent on N.I.H. funds and has seen nearly 25 percent less in grant funding this year, compared to the average amount from 2021 to 2024. 

The N.I.H. has obligated $67 million across 63 awards to Chan through June of this fiscal year; the 2021-24 average for the same time period was $90 million across more than 100 awards.

Nancy Krieger, a professor of social epidemiology at the Chan School, said that fallout from the funding slowdown goes beyond individual projects that lost grants. More than a year of federal cuts — and legal fights over the reductions — have “shaken any sense of stability as to whether the federal government is a reliable funder,” she said.

The school is already cutting back, with layoffs and reductions in the number of slots for Ph.D. students. “It’s not just that you lost funding, it’s that you’re reducing the size of the cohort for the next generation of researchers that you’re training,” Dr. Krieger said. “What is the knowledge lost? And what are the myriad ripple effects for the economies of the cities and towns that depend on universities as major employers?”

Harvard has also won some rounds in its fight with the administration. Harvard’s court victories protected much of its grant money and its ability to host international students. 

A federal judge on Aug. 13 dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit against Harvard that had accused the school of tolerating antisemitism and sought the ability to deny it grants. 

Harvard’s endowment continues to ride the stock market to record highs, and the university’s steadfastness under pressure has inspired supporters and alumni who do not want it to yield to President Trump.

While Yale University is in talks to perhaps become the next elite school to settle with the administration, Harvard continues to hold out. Harvard is not believed to be engaged in any serious settlement talks at this time.

“Harvard is fighting for principles, both legal and constitutional, and doing so on behalf of the entire system of colleges and universities,” said Lee Bollinger, the former president of Columbia University. “We should all be grateful.”

Yet, as Mr. Bollinger noted, “any litigant will inevitably pay a high price.”

The administration has pushed the fight to Harvard on several fronts. The university is still engaged in other litigation and appeals with the Trump administration; a loss in any major case could be devastating.

The Trump administration continues to open fresh battles. The government is proposing new budget rules that would give the administration’s political appointees more power over grants.

White House spokeswoman Liz Huston blamed the ongoing battles between the university and the administration on Harvard’s “stubborn commitment to unlawfully discriminating on the basis of race and failing to properly protect its students.”

“Unless Harvard comes to the table in good faith, the Trump administration will continue pursuing every available legal avenue to enforce federal civil rights laws,” she said.

Facing the uncertainty caused by lawsuits, grant slowdowns, and other pressures from the administration, Harvard and other schools are likely to continue to retrench, said Tom Gerety, a former president of Amherst College.

“The main thing you do in uncertainty is hunker down and say, ‘What cuts can we make right now?’” he said, noting that research universities are already trimming back on Ph.D. programs.

Tighter research budgets will mean scientists are more likely to seek jobs outside the United States, he said, while those still at American schools may be less likely to take the unconventional big swings in their research that can lead to scientific breakthroughs.

“This is going to hurt,” Mr. Gerety said, “and it’s going to hurt a lot more in 10 years than it does now.”

The government has pursued appeals of federal court rulings that went Harvard’s way last year. 

The two sides, as well as a number of outside parties, filed briefs this summer over last fall’s decision in the funding case. The government is also appealing a June 2025 court decision blocking the administration’s effort to stop Harvard from hosting international students. Oral arguments in that case are scheduled for October. 

Methodology

The Times analyzed N.I.H. awards made to Harvard University, Harvard Chan School and Harvard Medical School in fiscal years 2021 through 2026, using records publicly available through the agency’s RePORTER database.

To account for lags in data availability, the analyses include only awards made through June 2026, the most recent month comparable to prior years.

Irena Hwang is a data reporter at The Times, using computational tools to uncover hidden stories and illuminate the news.“