This Ain’t How It’s Supposed to Happen: The Federal Government Should Fund Research, Not Punish Universities

Let’s be crystal clear about something that should not be controversial: a president of the United States should support research, scientific discovery, and freedom of thought — not punish them.

And yet, in what can only be described as a jaw-dropping abuse of power, the Trump administration is set to cancel $100 million in federal research grants to Harvard University, reportedly in response to how the university has handled campus protests and allegations of antisemitism. This comes after the administration had already frozen about $3.2 billion in grants and contracts with Harvard last month.

This is not normal.
This is not okay.
And this is not how any of this is supposed to happen.

Let’s set aside, for a moment, that Harvard is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States and is widely regarded as the best in the country — and one of the best in the world. Let’s ignore the fact that it attracts top students, scholars, researchers, and scientists from across the globe, contributing not just to American prestige, but also to local and national economies. Let’s even momentarily forget that Harvard is a private university.

Here’s what matters: The federal government does not get to freeze grant funding because it doesn’t like what a university says or does. That is viewpoint discrimination, and it is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

These grants — your tax dollars — support life-changing, life-saving research. This isn’t about prestige; it’s about the future of medicine, technology, climate science, and beyond. It’s about the very real possibility that research cut off in the U.S. will simply move to countries like Canada, the EU, or China, which will happily fund it — and claim the discoveries as their own.

Think that’s alarmist? Think about Wegovy and Ozempic, the weight loss drugs that have been hailed as breakthroughs in treating diabetes and obesity. It didn’t come from a corporate R&D boardroom. It came from obscure federally-funded research into venom from the Gila monster — work that no private company would have funded because there was no immediate return on investment. A recent medical discovery related to multiple sclerosis (MS) recently made at the Harvard T.H. School of Public Health has revolutionized the field of MS research and is now driving new approaches to prevention and treatment. That research was federally funded.

That’s the role of the federal government in research: to fund discovery for the public good, not for profit.

The idea that a sitting president would jeopardize that kind of research funding out of political retaliation should horrify everyone. It’s not just an attack on Harvard. It’s an attack on science. On knowledge. On progress. It’s a deliberate choice to make America weaker and less competitive in a world that is not going to stop advancing just because we decide to kneecap ourselves.

And what should a president do if he disagrees with how a university is handling campus protests or speech? Absolutely nothing — unless there’s a clear threat to safety or an extreme situation, like when JFK sent the National Guard to enforce school integration at Ole Miss. A president has no business interfering in the affairs of a private university because he doesn’t like its stance on student protests.

This is petty authoritarianism dressed up as policy.

Freezing federal research funding in retaliation for political disagreement is a move straight out of an autocrat’s playbook. It undermines American values, violates constitutional rights, and risks a generation’s worth of discoveries we may never get back.

This ain’t how it’s supposed to happen.
And we have to say so — loudly, clearly, and often.