We are writing to update you on Harvard’s response to government threats and the potential consequences of the University’s choices for our staff and community. We also want to address growing concerns about a possible restructuring being considered within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS), and the lack of transparency and financial evidence supporting those potential plans. Additionally, if you haven’t had a chance to sign our petition to stop preemptive austerity measures, please sign by February 12.
First, though, since our last update, there have been some cautiously positive developments. In January and now February, we have seen the largest number of staff jobs posted on the Harvard jobs site since before the hiring freeze began (275 union and non-union staff jobs posted as of February 5, 2026). Additionally, no major layoffs tied to federal government threats have occurred since October, and some schools and departments appear to be stepping back from plans to eliminate staff preemptively. On the federal funding front, this week Congress officially rejected the Trump administration’s devastating proposed cuts to scientific research funding, instead slightly increasing the funding for research. The new legislation also blocks the administration’s efforts to reduce the indirect cost reimbursement rate on grants (which pay for essential costs that support research, but aren’t directly tied to a specific project, such as labs, libraries, IT, and financial and administrative staff.)
Despite these encouraging developments, we remain very concerned that some Harvard schools and departments still appear to be considering layoffs and broad budget reductions that would weaken teaching and research support and hurt our community—without offering clear, documented financial justification for why such actions are necessary now.
Questions Around FAS Restructuring Plans
We are particularly concerned about the work of FAS’s Task Force on Workforce Planning, which Dean Hopi Hoekstra charged with examining staffing levels and workflows, and developing recommendations that explicitly “may include proposals for staff reorganizations and reductions.”
Recent communications from the FAS Task Force emphasize that its aim is to preserve local support for faculty and students while increasing coordination and communication across departments. In principle, we support this goal, as many in our community likely do. However, too often in the past, Harvard initiatives aimed at efficiency have resulted in harmful layoffs, leaving departments with significantly fewer staff struggling to accomplish the same amount of work, alongside an erosion of services and support for faculty and students, and a meaningful loss of institutional knowledge.
These concerns are compounded by a lack of clarity around FAS’s financial situation. As justification for potential reductions, FAS leadership cited a “projected structural deficit” of $350 million at the end of FY2025. This does not mean that FAS experienced a $350 million deficit in FY2025, or that it is experiencing one now. In fact, FAS has described its operating deficit for FY2025 as “only a modest deficit of $8 million.” The $350 million figure is a projection based on internal assumptions about the future and modeling generated by an FAS committee, the details of which have not been shared with the wider FAS or Harvard communities.
To date, explanations for this projected $350 million future deficit have been limited to broad references to building maintenance needs over the next decade and possible future government threats. No detailed accounting or explanation has been provided to show how this number was derived, why it justifies severe budget cuts or staffing reductions, or why it is being treated as a near-certainty.
For decades, at the end of every fiscal year, the FAS Dean published a detailed annual financial report in November. However, last year, no FAS financial report was published for FY2025.
Additionally, FAS leadership has suggested that the $350 million structural deficit extends back many years—a claim that does not appear to be supported by the last four published annual reports, all of which ended with operating surpluses, not deficits. A summary statement in the most recent published report, for FY2024, included the confident assertion that “The FAS’s strong financial condition will continue to advance our teaching and research mission.”
Those past annual reports—previously publicly available—have all been removed from the FAS Dean’s website, with the last externally archived copies dating to April 2025 (from the Internet Archive). We have uploaded those past annual reports to our website. FAS’s apparent shift away from transparency is troubling, particularly as far-reaching austerity measures are being contemplated.
Decisions That Test Our Standards & Values
Large potential staffing reductions—combined with already implemented cuts to graduate student levels—represent a fundamental reshaping of the academic and administrative ecosystem of the University. These are not minor adjustments; they reshape how teaching, research, and student support function at their core. Yet no detailed or transparent financial explanation has been offered to justify changes this severe.
Let us be clear: we believe improving coordination and communication across departments is a responsible practice. We believe developing contingency plans for possible future financial losses is a responsible practice. But imposing severe cuts that will degrade and destabilize support for teaching and learning, sap precious institutional knowledge, and harm staff, faculty, and students before any concrete financial losses have occurred is not responsible—it is reckless.
At a time when our own federal government is ruling through misinformation, repression, secrecy, and contempt for democracy, it is all the more important that Harvard hold itself to its highest standards of open, fact-based discourse, careful decision-making, and accountability to its community.
Pressing for Accountability & Transparency
In our ongoing discussions with school and University administrators, we are pressing Harvard leaders to meet these high standards by providing detailed financial disclosure, clear and accountable reasoning, and a measured approach to any contemplated changes—grounded in present financial realities rather than speculation or panic about the future. We remain steadfast in our commitment to safeguarding the people, programs, teaching, and research that form the foundation of Harvard’s mission.
We also urge members of the Harvard community to stay active and engaged within their own departments and schools around these issues. When cuts are discussed, even tentatively, ask for the specific numbers and details behind those potential cuts. If severe layoffs or large budget cuts are under consideration in your school or department, are they supported by concrete current financial evidence—or are they based on projections that remain uncertain and untested? If no significant financial harm has occurred at this time, why are reductions of this severity being contemplated now? And what do administrators believe are the risks of taking a cautious, judicious approach based on concrete financial realities, rather than rushing towards painful, irreversible changes based on tentative assumptions about the future?
At Duke University, faculty affiliated with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP)—who were concerned about severe austerity measures being taken by Duke administrators—commissioned an outside auditor to review their university’s finances. The reviewer—a professor of accounting at Eastern Michigan University with years of experience auditing academic institutions—found Duke to be in “very strong financial condition.” In his report to faculty, he concluded that “claims of budget ‘holes,’ ‘deficits,’ or the need for cuts are not supported,” noting the presence of “significant discretionary reserves and ongoing excess cash flow.”
We are not suggesting that Harvard’s financial position mirrors Duke’s. However, this exercise at Duke highlights why careful scrutiny, evidence-based analysis, and inclusive discussion are essential when cuts of this magnitude are being contemplated.
Again, we will continue to press Harvard leaders to meet these standards of transparency and accountability, and we are grateful to the many members of the Harvard community who have supported this effort. Over 3,000 HUCTW members, non-union staff, faculty, graduate and undergraduate students, and other Harvard community friends have signed our petition to calling on Harvard to stop preemptive layoffs and austerity measures—thank you!
This week is your final opportunity to add your name to the petition. Please sign by Thursday, February 12, if you have not already done so!
Please also reach out to us with any thoughts or questions around these issues.
Thank you,
The HUCTW Executive Board & Staff
Simone Gonzalez, President
Tasha Williams, Vice President
Ben Janey, Treasurer
Danielle Boudrow, Recording Secretary
Carrie Ayers
Nyasha Bovell
Katie Genovese
Jason Gerdom
Katherine Westermann Gray
Victoria Groves-Cardillo
Sarah Hillman
Bridget Hinz
Tina Lin
Scott Peach
Cassidy Spiess
Donna Sweeney
Anna Taylor
Carrie Barbash
Alex Chisholm
Jill Comer
Lynn Wang DeLacey
Laura Ebenstein
Randi Ellingboe
Joie Gelband
Emily Spicer Hankle
Bill Jaeger
Mack McKenzie
Jaime Pepper
Rachael School
Tracey Smith
Ann Sjostedt
Emily Vides
Harvey Willson
