Linda McMahon, the country’s top education official, wants to reopen talks with Harvard University, but offered little indication that the Trump administration would consider changing its aggressive tactics to ease the standoff with the university.
Instead, she noted that U.S. officials have more ways to pressure Harvard to submit to President Trump’s agenda, and she blamed the university’s lawsuit against the administration for stifling talks.
“It’s a little bit hard to have open negotiations when we’ve got a lawsuit pending,” Ms. McMahon said in an interview on Friday. “When you’re sitting and talking, do you have to have all your lawyers present, do all those things to make sure you’re not compromising the lawsuit? That’s kind of stuff I’d have to have the lawyers respond to as well.”
Ms. McMahon repeatedly said she would like to return to negotiations with Harvard. Still, she declined to describe what more she would like to see from university officials for at least a brief détente. The two sides have been locked in an increasingly aggressive and litigious battle over Mr. Trump’s persistence in trying to bend the school to his will by threatening to pull all $9 billion it receives in federal funding without significant changes to its admissions, curriculum and hiring practices.
The fight is part of a broader bid by the president to realign what he views as the liberal tilt of elite college campuses, with Harvard earning praise from White House critics for its resistance.
But that resistance has come at a price. The government has canceled roughly $2.7 billion in grants, with another nearly $1 billion in funding for Harvard’s research partners now in limbo. Earlier this week, the administration took a significant step toward a lawsuit against Harvard when the Justice Department opened an investigation under the False Claims Act, a law designed to punish those who swindle the government.
Pressed on whether there was anything Harvard could do as a sign of good faith, she said she wanted an open dialogue. “The first step would be: Let’s sit down and have a conversation,” she said.
A spokesman for Harvard declined to comment.
Ms. McMahon’s opaqueness about a potential remedy in the fight with the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university reflected the broader uncertainty around Mr. Trump’s vision for higher education in America and the ultimate goal of his unflinching attacks on elite schools.
The Trump administration has portrayed Harvard and other universities as too reliant on tax dollars. But the research grants his team has canceled are primarily for projects the government had previously deemed crucial to the public interest in advancing human health, the foundations of science and the economy’s competitiveness.
The administration’s actions are part of what it describes as an overarching cultural crusade against antisemitism and inclusive practices toward L.G.B.T.Q. people on college campuses, particularly at Harvard. But those goals appear to have broadened.
In a scathing letter this month from Ms. McMahon informing the university that it would no longer qualify for federal grants, there was no mention of antisemitism or policies around transgender people.
There was also little suggestion in her missive that the government was open to finding a solution.
“The administration’s priorities have not changed,” Ms. McMahon wrote.
A response this week from Dr. Alan Garber, the president of Harvard, signaled a willingness to communicate. His letter came as several senior officials at the university privately acknowledged they were in an untenable crisis and feared that civil investigations could turn into full-blown criminal inquiries.
“We welcome the opportunity to share further information with you about the important work we are undertaking to combat prejudice and to pursue our mission of excellence in teaching, learning, and research,” Dr. Garber wrote.
When asked in the interview if the Trump administration was succeeding in its goals of changes at Harvard, Ms. McMahon highlighted the dismissal almost two months ago of two faculty leaders from the university’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies. She also acknowledged that the university had changed its handling of some disciplinary issues and protests and had addressed antisemitism.
“All that is good,” Ms. McMahon said. “We have forced their hand to do that because they weren’t doing it before. And so I think we have forced their hand and other universities to see that the president was serious with what he said.”
Ms. McMahon indicated she had not sought a conversation with Harvard during the past six weeks, as the government has targeted the university with at least eight investigations, inquiries and threats. But she offered some praise for Dr. Garber and said his letter this week was a positive sign.
“I think that Dr. Garber is saying, ‘We are moving in the directions that you want us to move in,’” Ms. McMahon said. “So now we’ve got to balance it against the legal side and see how the advice goes.”
Mr. McMahon said there remained plenty of options for the administration to apply more pressure on Harvard. She pointed out that the government canceled only about one-third of its roughly $9 billion in support for Harvard.
“So there is still that kind of balance as to how that money would be spent and what kind of accommodation would have to be made by Harvard in order to free the rest of that money,” she said.
Seated in the education secretary’s office on the seventh floor of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building, where large windows offer expansive views of the Washington skyline, she said it was time for Americans to rethink whether degrees from four-year universities were necessary, save for students seeking a select handful of professions.
“I look at my generation and how I encouraged my children, which was, I really believe you have to go to college — to even have a slight chance of success, you know, you need to go to college,” Ms. McMahon said. “That’s how you’re going to get your foot in the door.”
“I don’t think that there is that emphasis today, or that we have to have that emphasis today, on four-year college education in the old sense,” she said.
