Harvard University, sitting on a massive $53 billion endowment, just lost billions in federal grants and billionaire Bill Ackman is gleefully leading the charge to keep their money spigot turned off.
At a Glance
- Bill Ackman supports the Trump administration’s decision to freeze billions in research grants to Harvard University
- Harvard is accused of “administrative bloat” and poor investment management despite its massive $53 billion endowment
- Ackman demands the removal of Penny Pritzker, a former Obama official, from Harvard’s leadership
- Harvard claims the funding freeze imposes “unprecedented and improper control” over its operations
- The university’s handling of antisemitism and governance issues has been a focal point of Ackman’s criticism
A Billionaire’s Battle Against Ivy League Entitlement
The gloves are off in the escalating war between billionaire investor Bill Ackman and Harvard University. Ackman, never one to mince words, is backing the Trump administration’s decision to freeze future federal grants to his alma mater, arguing that the elite institution has no inherent right to taxpayer money. This financial smackdown comes as Harvard faces scrutiny for what Ackman describes as “administrative bloat” and remarkably poor investment returns despite sitting on a $53 billion endowment that could fund a small nation. The Education Department’s withholding of billions in research grants represents a rare check on an institution that has operated virtually without accountability for generations.
“They have lost all future grants, their tax exemptions are at risk,” Ackman declared, adding, “It is all self-induced gross mismanagement and I think that the (Trump) administration is doing precisely the right thing now.” This scathing assessment cuts to the heart of a growing sentiment that elite universities have become bloated, inefficient operations more focused on political activism than education. While Harvard cries foul and claims victim status, Ackman points out the obvious: the university has more than enough money to fund its own research without siphoning from taxpayers who increasingly question the value these institutions provide to society.
Harvard’s Democratic Operative Problem
At the center of Ackman’s crosshairs is Penny Pritzker, a former Obama administration official and senior fellow at Harvard Corporation. Ackman is demanding her removal, citing catastrophic mismanagement of the university’s standoff with the Trump administration. Instead of negotiating when federal funding was suspended, Harvard’s leadership chose to sue the federal government – a decision Ackman attributes to Pritzker’s poor judgment and political bias. The billionaire investor didn’t hold back, suggesting that Harvard’s problems stem from becoming a political advocacy organization rather than an educational institution dedicated to the pursuit of truth and knowledge.
“The notion is the federal government money is only going to fund breakthrough research, that is just false,” Ackman stated.
Pritzker’s deep ties to Democratic politics – she’s a major donor and former Commerce Secretary under Obama – exemplify the revolving door between progressive politics and elite academia that conservatives have criticized for decades. Her central role in appointing the disgraced former Harvard President Claudine Gay, who resigned in January 2024 amid a plagiarism scandal, only reinforces the impression that political connections trump academic integrity in Harvard’s leadership selection process. The fact that this Democratic operative continues to wield significant influence over one of America’s most prestigious institutions highlights exactly why federal oversight is necessary.
Time to Pull the Ivy League Off the Government Teat
What’s particularly galling about Harvard’s indignant response to the funding freeze is the university’s massive financial resources. With $53 billion sitting in its endowment coffers, Harvard could easily fund its own research priorities without taxpayer subsidies. Ackman pointed out that the university’s investment returns have significantly underperformed compared to what they should be generating, suggesting financial incompetence at an institution that ironically houses one of the world’s most prestigious business schools. This financial mismanagement is all the more reason why American taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize an institution that has become increasingly hostile to traditional American values.
Ackman’s most provocative suggestion – that it might be time to start a new university altogether – strikes at the heart of conservative frustrations with elite academia. He argues that Harvard’s faculty and students could easily relocate, implying that the institution’s prestige is built more on reputation than current performance. This call for creative destruction in higher education resonates with many Americans who see universities like Harvard as captured by leftist ideologues and bureaucrats who provide diminishing value at ever-increasing costs. Perhaps the most effective way to reform these institutions isn’t through internal change but through external competition from new universities built on principles of excellence, merit, and intellectual freedom.
