By: Fern Sidman

The political and cultural clash between President Donald Trump and Harvard University erupted into a public firestorm this week after Trump accused the elite institution of becoming a bastion of antisemitism and left-wing radicalism. His remarks came in response to Harvard’s legal battle with his administration over the freezing of more than $2.2 billion in federal funding, a move Trump has framed as part of his broader effort to crack down on antisemitism and enforce accountability at America’s most powerful universities.

As reported by Newsmax on Thursday, Trump unleashed a blistering critique of Harvard on Truth Social Thursday morning, calling the university a “liberal mess” overrun by “crazed lunatics” and a “threat to democracy”—a direct inversion of President Joe Biden’s oft-used phrase against Trump himself.

“Harvard is an antisemitic, far-left Institution, as are numerous others, with students being accepted from all over the world that want to rip our country apart,” Trump wrote. “It is truly horrific!”

At the core of the escalating conflict is the Trump administration’s decision earlier this month to freeze billions in federal grants to Harvard, citing the university’s failure to adequately address rising on-campus antisemitism since Hamas’s October 7, 2023 terror attacks in Israel, as reported by Newsmax.  Trump has demanded that Harvard enact sweeping reforms, including overhauling its leadership, admissions policies, and student club recognition standards.

Harvard, in turn, filed a federal lawsuit on Monday, claiming the funding freeze is “arbitrary and capricious”, and asserting that the Trump administration has not demonstrated any rational link between antisemitism concerns and the research funding now in jeopardy.

“The government has not — and cannot — identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological and other research it has frozen,” Harvard’s suit argues, as quoted by Newsmax. “Nor has the government acknowledged the significant consequences that the indefinite freeze… will have on Harvard’s research programs, the beneficiaries of that research, and the national interest in furthering American innovation.”

The White House, standing firm behind the funding decision, issued a sharp rebuke to Harvard’s legal argument, echoing Trump’s populist tone. Speaking to Newsmax, White House spokesman Harrison Fields dismissed the lawsuit as a desperate defense of a corrupt elite.

“The gravy train of federal assistance to institutions like Harvard, which enrich their grossly overpaid bureaucrats with tax dollars from struggling American families, is coming to an end,” Fields said. “Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to access that privilege.”

Trump himself doubled down, suggesting that Harvard’s lawsuit—and its lawyers—were undermining national interests.

“Now, since our filings began, they act like they are all ‘American Apple Pie,’” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Harvard is a threat to democracy, with a lawyer who represents me, who should therefore be forced to resign, immediately, or be fired.”

As the report at Newsmax noted, Harvard’s legal team—headed by Robert Hur and William Burck—has direct connections to Trump’s own orbit. Hur was a senior DOJ official during Trump’s first term, and Burck previously represented The Trump Organization. Trump didn’t hide his contempt for the legal irony.

“He’s not that good, anyway, and I hope that my very big and beautiful company, now run by my sons, gets rid of him ASAP!” Trump wrote.

Harvard President Alan Garber, who has faced mounting criticism both from within and outside the university, told NBC’s Lester Holt this week that he was forced to defend the institution on free speech grounds—even as he conceded the campus is facing a “real problem” with antisemitism following the Hamas attacks.

“We are defending what I believe is one of the most important linchpins of the American economy and way of life — our universities,” Garber said, as per the information in the Newsmax report.

Trump and his allies, however, see Garber’s response as too little, too late—and a sign that Harvard is attempting to whitewash deep-rooted ideological bias with hollow gestures.

Prominent Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz, a longtime civil liberties advocate and critic of leftist orthodoxy at Harvard, told Newsmax that Trump’s case is likely to prevail.

“Harvard’s going to lose,” Dershowitz stated on The Record with Greta Van Susteren. “It has no obligation legally, the government, to fund a $53 billion university.”

Dershowitz said the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed on First Amendment grounds, as Harvard’s speech rights are not tied to federal entitlements.

“Harvard has the right to speak and to teach and academic freedom, but it doesn’t have the right to get funding,” he explained on the Newsmax show. “This is simply a ploy to try to get a resolution.”

As the report at Newsmax pointed out, this legal standoff isn’t just about Harvard—it signals a seismic shift in how elite universities are treated by federal policymakers. Trump’s decision to leverage financial tools to enforce campus reform reflects a new approach to what his administration sees as left-wing academic capture and systemic antisemitism masquerading as activism.

What began as a post-October 7 cultural debate about pro-Hamas sympathies on campus has now become a national test case for whether elite academic institutions can be compelled to change under financial duress—and whether free speech protections extend to federally funded universities embroiled in controversy.

With over $2.2 billion in funding on the line, and both Harvard and the Trump administration refusing to back down, the legal and cultural clash is far from over. As Newsmax underscores, the case will not only define the limits of university autonomy in the face of government oversight—it may also determine how America rethinks the balance between academic freedom and ideological responsibility.

In Trump’s words, Harvard has become “a threat to democracy.” For Garber and Harvard, the question is whether they can convince the courts—and the public—that resisting government pressure is a defense of democracy, not an evasion of accountability.