Introduction
The recent ABC News article detailing the termination of more than 350 research grants at Harvard Medical School during the Trump administration drew immediate attention and concern. The user who flagged this article asked whether Harvard’s endowment can realistically cover such losses — and whether the claims regarding the motivations and consequences of the terminations hold up under scrutiny. Let’s break down the major claims in the article and explain what’s accurate, what’s exaggerated, and what’s missing.
Historical Context
Tensions between the Trump administration and top academic institutions, including Harvard, have simmered across multiple issues—especially around topics like diversity initiatives and alleged campus antisemitism. Federal research grants, awarded through agencies such as the NIH and NSF, often fund specific labs and scientists rather than institutions. However, political pressures have historically influenced grantmaking and federal support, making funding vulnerable when ideological battles escalate.
Fact-Check of Specific Claims
Claim #1: “At least 350 Harvard medical grants were terminated by the Trump administration.”
This claim is supported by statements from Harvard-affiliated researchers, as well as confirmation from ABC News attributing the figure to a faculty source. However, there are no official statements or lists from NIH or NSF corroborating the exact number. Federal grant terminations of this magnitude would typically be documented, especially for accountability purposes. While the grant terminations appear real—based on multiple firsthand accounts from researchers—the precise number (350) remains unverified through official public records. Agencies like NIH typically list terminated grants in databases, but a search does not return confirmation of this mass termination at the school-wide level.
Verdict: Largely True, but Attribution to the Trump administration as motive requires contextual clarification.
Claim #2: “Harvard’s $53.2 billion endowment cannot cover the costs of the cut federal research grants.”
This claim is technically true. While Harvard does have one of the largest endowments globally (valued at $53.2 billion as of 2024), its funds are largely earmarked for specific uses based on donor intent. As clarified by Harvard faculty members in the article, the university spends approximately 5% of its endowment per year. Financial experts confirm that spending more significantly risks depleting the fund’s long-term viability. According to Harvard’s 2023 financial report, only a fraction of the endowment is flexible for unrestricted institutional use. Additionally, federal grants are awarded to specific research projects, not to the university at large, making their replacement from general endowment funds both logistically and financially impractical.
Verdict: True.
Claim #3: “The grants were canceled as retaliation for Harvard’s alleged failure to curb campus antisemitism and for not eliminating DEI programs.”
This claim is central to the article but warrants nuance. The article cites an April 11 letter from the Trump administration citing Harvard’s alleged tolerance of antisemitism and commitment to DEI as justification for cutting funding. Although no full letter is public, the Education Department previously criticized Harvard for fostering “anti-Semitic discrimination,” consistent with the article’s references. A federal lawsuit accusing Harvard of inaction on campus antisemitism offers some legal grounding to these claims. However, terminating grants to scientific researchers far removed geographically and academically from the controversial campus protests—without documented evidence that these researchers were involved—raises legal and ethical concerns. The lack of public policy statements linking grant termination to a protocol (e.g., misconduct review or violation of funding terms) implies a retaliatory motive but stops short of definitive proof.
Verdict: Likely True, with political motives strongly suggested by circumstances and associated letters, though opaque on procedural grounds.
Claim #4: “The terminated NIH and NSF grants were not gifts to Harvard but contractual research agreements that directly fund scientists.”
This is correct. NIH and NSF grants are not general contributions to a university’s operating account; they are contractual agreements that support specific researchers and projects. NIH documentation confirms that grants are often awarded to individuals rather than the institution. Funds typically pay for salaries, research materials, and lab overhead. As Harvard faculty members emphasized in the article, these contracts are not transferrable and are tied directly to both the individual principal investigator and the proposing institution. Canceling them not only impacts scientific progress but also jeopardizes the livelihoods of researchers and attached personnel.
Verdict: True.
Conclusion
The ABC News article accurately reports the large-scale cancellation of federal research grants at Harvard Medical School during the Trump administration, supported by credible faculty testimonies and inferred political motives. Most of the claims are factually correct, though some statements—like the number of terminated grants—lack independent public documentation. The article offers a one-sided perspective, largely framing the moves as politically motivated retaliation, and does not include comments from any current or former Trump administration officials, which presents an imbalanced narrative. Additionally, the connection between campus antisemitism claims and Harvard Medical School grant funding raises civil liberties questions that deserve wider scrutiny.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
If you value clarity in reporting and want to cut through misleading headlines, download the DBUNK app today and take part in eliminating misinformation. Submit articles anytime for free, and join the DBUNK community that prioritizes truth over tribalism. Follow us on social media @dbunknow to stay informed.
Link to Original Article: Visit ABC News to read the original article.
