White House vs. Harvard
The African phrase “when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers” has long captured the consequences of titanic power struggles. Today, that metaphor finds fresh relevance in the standoff between Donald Trump, the gatekeeper of the Oval Office, the ultimate political outsider turned disruptor, and Harvard University, the most recognizable symbol of the American elite. As these two elephants clash repeatedly in courtrooms, media narratives, and ideological debates, the question becomes: Who is getting hurt, and what does this mean for the global stature of Harvard?
Harvard is not just a university, it is an iconic global institution with disproportionate soft power. With an endowment exceeding $50 billion, it commands intellectual, financial, and policy influence far beyond Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard-trained alumni occupy the highest echelons of governments, corporations, and cultural institutions worldwide. In many ways, Harvard writes the rules of elite consensus.
And that, precisely, is what Trump rails against.
For decades, Trump has fashioned himself as the populist hammer against elite privilege—Harvard being one of his favorite targets. From controversial cabinet appointments to many executive orders, Trump is using his influence and legal machinery to cast Ivy League institutions as disconnected and out of touch with the average American. In this narrative, Harvard isn’t just liberal—it’s the intellectual breeding ground for what Trump and his allies label as anti-American ideologies.
Recent allegations include the university’s handling of antisemitic speech on campus, faculty support for pro-Hamas or overtly anti-Hindu movements. There is a perception of a double standard in how it disciplines speech from different identity groups, which has opened Harvard to legitimate critique. To its critics, the university has become a sanctuary for radical ideology, cloaked in the language of academic freedom but blind to its global implications.
To many around the world, particularly in India and Israel, these patterns matter. Harvard’s silence on issues of antisemitism or Hinduphobia does not go unnoticed. When faculty and student groups appear to endorse or excuse terror-linked organizations or mock the religious traditions of over a billion people, it doesn’t just harm Harvard’s credibility—it damages America’s moral brand.
Yet, Trump’s mode of confrontation is hardly surgical. His crusades and public provocations may succeed in spotlighting Harvard’s hypocrisy, but they risk converting legitimate concerns into political theatrics. For example, if Trump-backed investigations into Harvard admissions or donor influence are perceived as revenge-driven rather than reform-driven, they undermine the legitimacy of the effort.
So, who is the “grass” in this fight?
Students, faculty, and the global public. Students, especially international ones, come to Harvard expecting a world-class education. They instead find themselves navigating a minefield of ideological performance and institutional hedging. Faculty committed to genuine scholarship face growing pressure to either conform or self-censor. And for the world at large, the United States looks increasingly fractured, unable to align its elite institutions with democratic values.
What might the White House do next? Expect escalations: audits into foreign funding at elite institutions, pressure on accreditation boards, more aggressive Department of Education probes, and perhaps support for rival institutions (such as university systems in Texas or Florida) to dilute the Ivy League’s influence.
But here’s a cautionary note: Damaging Harvard’s reputation isn’t the answer. Reforming it is.
Harvard must confront its dual identity crisis—how to be a global university while staying accountable to American values. That means taking antisemitism and Hinduphobia seriously, creating ideological diversity, and enforcing a clear line between academic freedom and hate speech.
In the long run, Harvard’s global prestige will only survive if it remembers that intellectual rigor must be matched by moral clarity. And Trump, if he truly seeks reform, must move from spectacle to statesmanship. Only then can this battle between two elephants become less contentious and reform-oriented.
When two elephants fight, there are consequences. Only time will determine who wins the fight, but surely, any international students may want to keep themselves away from Harvard. They don’t want to be the “grass” and suffer the most.
Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
Formerly, a researcher in Italy, Japan, and France, he has widely travelled and came to the US in 1978. He was a faculty and academic administrator in several different universities in PA, TX, NJ, MN, WI, and NY, and an Executive Fellow in the White House S&T Policy during the Clinton administration.
