We want to share important updates on the University’s ongoing efforts to respond to government attacks, including some positive funding developments. At the same time, we feel compelled to alert you to troubling trends emerging in how certain schools are approaching budget and staffing decisions. These patterns risk undermining both the livelihoods of staff and the quality of Harvard’s work. Resisting these destructive trends will require the voices and solidarity of the entire Harvard community.
One simple and powerful step everyone can take right now is to ask the urgent questions—of department chairs, of school administrators, of anyone making crucial budgetary decisions. If you are told that your school or department must absorb cuts of 20% or 30%, what is the specific reasoning behind such a massive cut? Where did that number come from? If your school receives federal funding, will your department receive a share of the recently reinstated $46 million in research grants? Have additional funds begun to flow? If drastic budget reductions with real human consequences are being discussed, are they based on concrete financial losses or projections of fiscal challenges that remain highly speculative?
Current and Potential Threats to Harvard Finances
Harvard continues to face extraordinary financial pressures as a result of sustained attacks from the Trump administration. Since the spring, the University has endured the suspension of billions of dollars in federal research funding, the imposition of a new 8% tax on realized endowment gains, threats to revoke the University’s nonprofit status, proposals to reduce the indirect cost recovery rate on federal grants, and restrictions on international student visas. Most recently, the federal government has escalated its assault on Harvard by threatening to bar the University from receiving any federal grants or contracts through a process known as “debarment.”
While these threats are undeniably serious—and some potentially devastating—it is important to recognize that many have not been enacted. At present, they remain threats rather than realities, creating a climate of uncertainty and fear across the University, but not yet materializing into action.
The 8% endowment tax on realized gains is a concrete financial change that will take effect soon, but it is a change over which Harvard has significant control. As the new tax only applies to endowment assets that a university chooses to sell, there are multiple ways to manage endowment investments to sustain strong returns while minimizing exposure to the tax (as described in this article about how the endowment tax is being addressed at Yale).
To date, the most consequential fiscal blow to Harvard has been the cancellation of a reported $2.2 billion in federal research grants—and as a result approximately $750 million per year in grant funding stopped flowing to the University in April. That cancellation has led to the dismantling of critical research programs and the elimination of significant jobs—both union and non-union—in several schools.
Positive Developments in Federal Funding
In early September, there were some encouraging developments in the fight to restore federal grant funding. After Harvard filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government in response to the funding freeze, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restart the $2.2 billion (about $750 millon per year) in frozen federal grants. By late September, many University researchers reported receiving official notices that their previously withheld grants would be reinstated, and Harvard has since confirmed that at least $46 million in NIH support has already begun to flow back to the University from the government. Although federal funding clearly remains precarious, these developments mark an important first step toward restoring the resources that sustain Harvard’s vital research.
Troubling Budget Cuts Proposed at Some Harvard Schools
As these positive funding developments unfold, HUCTW leaders are at the same time deeply concerned about new budgeting and staffing patterns emerging in some parts of the University. Until now, the vast majority of job cuts were tied to specific research projects that lost federal funding. While we continue to push Harvard to draw on its $6 billion in reserves to protect those jobs and sustain that research in the short-term, it is clear that those job eliminations are based on documented financial losses due to the funding freeze.
More recently, however, discussions at some schools suggest that broader cost-cutting measures are under consideration—plans that appear excessive with no clear rationale. The proposed reductions are particularly alarming, as they cite looming financial threats to rationalize sweeping job cuts, even though those schools have yet to experience any significant financial losses. In other words, some schools are proposing significant layoffs based on the specter of future financial threats that may not come to pass.
The barrage of funding threats from our own government has understandably created deep concern for the future at Harvard. It is reasonable that administrators are mapping out budget contingency plans for possible worst-case scenarios. However, staff members’ livelihoods should not be sacrificed in anticipation of financial blows that have not actually landed. Just this week, the Trump administration threatened to blacklist Harvard from all federal grants indefinitely—only to announce the very next day that a deal to restore full grant funding was close at hand. President Trump’s ultimatums and promises are moving targets, calculated to destabilize the University and bend Harvard to his will. Although these threats are alarming, many have yet to come to fruition. Harvard should base critical staffing decisions on each school’s current financial reality, not on the shifting shadow of threats that may never materialize.
These preemptive cuts not only jeopardize the livelihoods of University staff, but also threaten the quality and integrity of Harvard’s teaching and research. The work of HUCTW members is not peripheral to Harvard’s mission—it is indispensable. We facilitate teaching, research, curricula, admissions, financial aid, student life, and every single class taken at Harvard. Every day, HUCTW staff provide the hands-on, essential support that enables faculty to teach, researchers to discover, and students to learn. Slashing staff positions not out of necessity, but in reaction to vague and unrealized threats, will not strengthen Harvard’s future—it will weaken it. It will leave faculty, researchers, and students without the critical infrastructure and support they need to thrive.
Transparency About Important Developments
Nearly a month has passed since media reports confirmed that many Harvard researchers received official notices from the federal government reinstating their research funding and two weeks since news outlets reported that a portion of the research funding from NIH had begun to flow. These events are suggestive of a positive turnabout in the research funding crisis – yet central and school leaders have remained silent, leaving many in our community unaware of these significant developments. Without open, timely, and transparent communication, faculty, staff, and students cannot fully understand the challenges Harvard faces, let alone understand the rationale for the drastic measures being proposed at some schools.Â
We recognize that Harvard leaders may not yet know the full scope of the restored funds, but if that is the case, then that is precisely what we need to hear—openly and directly.
Joining Together in the Face of Uncertainty
In meetings with school and University leaders, we are pressing administrators to provide detailed, transparent information about Harvard’s financial and operational landscape. We are calling for careful, fact-based choices instead of reactionary cuts based on speculation. And we will not waver in defending the jobs, programs, and research that form the foundation of the University’s mission.
But when outside forces are working to destabilize and tear down our institution, safeguarding Harvard’s future requires the voices of a whole community. If University leaders choose a path that sacrifices people in the name of misplaced caution, it will fall to us—staff, faculty, researchers, and students—to stand together and insist on another path forward.Â
The choice before us is simple. We can allow fear and speculation to dictate Harvard’s future, or we can insist that our University stand on the solid ground of present realities, shared understanding, and mutual respect. If Harvard chooses to honor its people rather than preemptively sacrifice them, it will not only endure the government’s assaults—it will emerge stronger, more united, and more true to its mission.
Thank you,
From the HUCTW Executive Board & Staff
Carrie Barbash
Tasha Williams
Ben Janey
Danielle Boudrow
Carrie Ayers
Beth Beighlie
Nyasha Bovell
Deborah Chaisson
Katie Genovese
Jason Gerdom
Katherine Westermann Gray
Victoria Groves-Cardillo
Sarah Hillman
Bridget Hinz
Cassidy Spiess
Donna Sweeney
Anna Taylor
Alex Chisholm
Jill Comer
Lynn Wang DeLacey
Laura Ebenstein
Randi Ellingboe
Joie Gelband
Simone Gonzalez
Emily Spicer Hankle
Bill Jaeger
Mack Mckenzie
Jaime Pepper
Rachael School
Tracey Smith
Ann Sjostedt
Emily Vides
Harvey Willson