{shortcode-0659d702a775680c27903e2f73cc46d2faf4d3ae}

Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 said the turn against higher education in Washington posed a greater threat to the University than anything in recent memory, making his most direct comments yet on Republicans’ sweep to power during a closed-door session of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

At the FAS meeting on Dec. 3, Garber said he met with roughly 40 members of Congress during six trips to Washington since becoming president. Garber said he emerged from the conversations convinced there was bipartisan frustration with Harvard and acknowledged that he believes the criticisms contain elements of truth.

Garber’s remarks — among his first since President-elect Donald Trump won a second term in the White House — suggest Harvard’s leaders are reevaluating their public messaging in the face of an increasingly hostile climate in Washington.

During his remarks, Garber said that the University’s communications strategy has not worked as well as its leaders had thought.

Details of the meeting were relayed to The Crimson by three faculty attendees who were granted anonymity to describe Garber’s private remarks to the FAS.

Garber said he saw the election results as an anti-elite repudiation by the American electorate. Harvard, he said, must listen to public criticism with “empathy and humility.”

But Garber did not provide details on how Harvard would revamp its communications strategy or change its policies, according to the faculty attendees.

Garber’s conciliatory tone suggests he intends to take a diplomatic approach — rather than a defiant one — as he interacts with an incoming presidential administration that has Harvard in its crosshairs.

Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton wrote in a statement that University officials will remain in communication with federal lawmakers, but declined to comment on the contents of the meeting.

“The University will continue to engage in Washington and with federal leaders to make the case for the partnership between the government and universities that supports students, vital research and innovation that fuel economic growth, as well as improvements in health and wellbeing,” Newton wrote.

During the meeting, Vice President for Public Affairs and Communications Paul Andrew described what University officials consider to be key legislative threats to Harvard — such as an endowment tax, congressional probes, and threats to federal research funding.

In previous remarks to faculty, Garber described an increase to the endowment tax as the “threat that keeps me up at night.”

Trump has proposed raising taxes on the net investment income universities receive from their endowments beyond the 1.4 percent tax that he signed into law during his first term. In 2023, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) — the incoming vice president — introduced a bill that would have hiked the endowment tax to 35 percent. The bill died in committee.

More recent bills introduced by House Republicans have proposed raising the tax to 10 percent.

Harvard could face a federal funding squeeze from other directions as well — especially if a new Trump administration follows through on the threats to research funding that he repeatedly issued during his first term.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Jayanta “Jay” Bhattacharya, Trump’s pick to lead the National Institutes of Health, is considering linking NIH grant funding to indices of academic freedom.

That could spell trouble for Harvard, which has been a consistent target in campus free speech battles. One ranking published by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression lists Harvard dead last among 257 universities.

Six congressional committees are also examining Harvard’s federal funding as part of their investigation into campus antisemitism, and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) has warned he would consider measures to revoke Harvard’s accreditation.

Though unlikely, revoked accreditation would threaten Harvard’s more than $600 million in annual federal research funding. Garber did not address the possibility of accreditation loss at the meeting, according to the attendees.

Though Andrew said he saw the efforts to curtail Harvard’s federal funding as real threats, he noted that Republicans’ slim majorities in both houses of Congress could make it harder to pass polarizing legislation.

Faculty at the Dec. 3 meeting prodded Garber on his plans for listening to Harvard’s critics and what the University plans to do to protect faculty and students when they face public backlash.

Asked how he would respond to possible threats to international students’ immigration status under a Trump administration, Garber said he would support Harvard’s students, faculty, and staff while complying with the law.

English professor Derek Miller floated a series of suggestions he said could help increase trust and transparency with the public — including ending legacy admissions, increasing the open-access publication of Harvard research, and establishing academic exchange programs with other American universities.

Miller also proposed dismantling the Harvard Management Company, which manages Harvard’s endowment, and investing the endowment in general index funds.

In an interview, Miller said he saw his recommendations as a way to align Harvard with “the broader public good.”

“The point isn’t any of the specific proposals,” he said. “The point is that if we’re working as an institution to try to respond to some of the criticisms of higher education over the past few years and to become more like the institutions we hope we can be, then we need to have some concrete policies in place to change the way we do business.”

Garber remained noncommittal on Miller’s proposals.

—Staff writer Tilly R. Robinson can be reached at tilly.robinson@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @tillyrobin.