Bulwark Takes Episode Summary: "Harvard Makes A Stand Against Trump’s Crackdown"

Release Date: April 16, 2025

In this compelling episode of "Bulwark Takes," hosts Bill Kristol and Jonathan Cohn delve into the escalating conflict between Harvard University and the Trump administration. The discussion centers on the administration's attempts to curtail federal funding to prestigious universities, using Harvard as a focal point. Kristol and Cohn provide insightful analysis on the implications of this clash for academic freedom, federal policies, and the broader landscape of American higher education.

1. Introduction and Context

The episode opens with Bill Kristol introducing the primary topic: the confrontation between Harvard University and the Trump administration. Both Kristol and Cohn are Harvard alumni, providing them with a unique perspective on the matter.

• Kristol [00:00]: "Hi, Bill Kristol here with Jonathan Cohn. We're going to discuss Harvard University versus the Trump administration. Whose side are you on, Jonathan?"

• Cohn [00:08]: "I am on Harvard's side here. It was good to see a big university stand up to the administration, particularly after what we saw with Columbia."

Cohn emphasizes the significance of Harvard's resistance, especially following similar challenges faced by Columbia University. He acknowledges the difficult position university administrators are in, balancing institutional integrity with the substantial funding at stake.

2. Harvard's Stand Against the Trump Administration

The hosts explore Harvard's decision to resist the Trump administration's funding cuts, highlighting the university's substantial endowment and resources as key factors enabling its defiance.

• Cohn [00:48]: "Harvard has that big endowment, has the resources. If they're not going to stand up for it, nobody is."

Kristol adds that, despite his history of defending Republicans against critiques from Harvard, he recognizes the administration's actions as overreaching.

• Kristol [00:48]: "I've been a friendly critic of Harvard… I didn't expect myself to end up defending Harvard against a Republican administration trying to cut off its funds in an arbitrary way."

He questions the legal basis for the administration's actions, noting the lack of specific evidentiary grounds for the funding cuts.

3. Trump Administration's Approach to University Funding

The conversation shifts to dissecting the Trump administration's strategy in targeting universities like Harvard and Columbia.

• Kristol [02:47]: "They don't like the balance of views and the faculty who are in certain departments… that is a level of intrusiveness and attempt to take over private universities… that's pretty astounding."

Cohn discusses the complexities of the laws governing federal grants, suggesting that while there are provisions that could justify funding cuts, the administration's approach appears to bypass standard legal and procedural safeguards.

• Cohn [02:53]: "There's provisions here and there that a clever lawyer could do something with… but then there's also the general First Amendment prohibitions."

Kristol speculates on the specific legal mechanisms, such as Title VI, that the administration might be exploiting to justify the $9 billion in funding cuts, questioning the precedent and feasibility of such actions.

• Kristol [04:03]: "Title six… no one's ever enforced. I think you can cut off all federal funds if there's a violation of particular aspects… but it's a big reach."

4. Impact on Universities and Research Funding

The hosts examine the broader consequences of the administration's funding cuts on academic research and university operations.

• Cohn [07:18]: "This is like a neutron bomb… it just wipes out everything."

He underscores the indiscriminate nature of the funding cuts, which threaten not only politically sensitive departments but also vital research areas like biomedical studies and engineering.

• Cohn [09:00]: "What does that have to do with an NIH grant to study a new treatment for Alzheimer's? It just wipes out everything."

Kristol reflects on the unexpected nature of these actions, noting that prior to this, the administration's approach had been relatively conventional, focusing more on political battles like those with Fauci over COVID-19.

• Kristol [09:00]: "He was a pretty conventional… But now he's doing things with NIH, HHS…"

5. Political Dynamics and Resistance

Kristol and Cohn analyze the political implications of Harvard's resistance, considering the symbolism and potential ripple effects across other institutions.

• Kristol [13:38]: "We do need people to stand up… sometimes if it's the biggest, a giant liberal, mostly liberal university, fine."

He addresses the debate over whether Harvard, as a prestigious and liberal institution, is the appropriate face of resistance against the Trump administration, countering arguments that other institutions like Michigan or Texas should take the lead.

• Cohn [12:10]: "The schools that have been hit are almost all coastal schools or private schools in blue states…"

Cohn notes that the administration's focus on elite, coastal universities overlooks major public institutions in swing states, which play significant roles in their local economies and hold considerable influence in national politics.

• Cohn [17:05]: "We've hit a little bit of a critical mass… people are understanding that autocracy is not just dogma within the federal government."

Both hosts express cautious optimism that Harvard's stand might inspire broader resistance against what they perceive as authoritarian tendencies within the administration. They suggest that such resistance is beginning to gain momentum, supported by public backlash to policies like immigration restrictions and economic tariffs.

6. Conclusion and Future Outlook

As the episode wraps up, Kristol reflects on the potential long-term impacts of Harvard's defiance and the emerging resistance to the administration's policies.

• Kristol [18:16]: "I get the feeling… we're seeing evidence of that across America, including with the Democratic Party. And people are understanding…"

Cohn concurs, pointing to growing public discontent and the cumulative effect of multiple contentious policies fueling a collective pushback against perceived overreach.

• Cohn [17:05]: "There is this sort of sense of people are like, wait, we can push or we need to push back."

The hosts conclude on a hopeful note, suggesting that the combined efforts of major institutions like Harvard and the broader public's awakening to authoritarian practices may signal the beginning of substantial resistance against the Trump administration's policies.

Notable Quotes

• Jonathan Cohn [00:08]: "It was good to see a big university stand up to the administration, particularly after what we saw with Columbia."

• Bill Kristol [00:48]: "Because the Trump administration doesn't like certain policies and practices of Harvard, most of which... are simply, they don't like the balance of views and the faculty who are in certain departments."

• Bill Kristol [04:03]: "Title six… I think that's a big reach and not to say no one's, I believe, ever, really ever done this."

• Jonathan Cohn [07:18]: "It's almost this sort of intellectual equivalent of like a neutron bomb, right? It just wipes out everything."

• Jonathan Cohn [17:05]: "We've hit a little bit of a critical mass… people are understanding that autocracy is not just dogma within the federal government."

Final Thoughts

This episode of "Bulwark Takes" offers a thorough examination of the tensions between Harvard University and the Trump administration, highlighting significant concerns about academic freedom, federal overreach, and the resilience of elite institutions in the face of political adversity. Through the articulate discourse of Kristol and Cohn, listeners gain a nuanced understanding of the stakes involved and the potential pathways forward for American higher education and civil society.