Introduction
The article from the BBC reports that the Trump administration plans to review and potentially withdraw approximately $100 million in federal contracts and grants to Harvard University. It claims this effort is being led by the Government Services Administration (GSA), justified by alleged administrative non-compliance and accusations of antisemitism. A DBUNK user submitted this article to verify whether the GSA holds the authority to advise federal agencies to terminate contracts under such justifications. Let’s explore the accuracy, context, and potential bias of the core claims.
Historical Context
For decades, prestigious universities like Harvard have depended significantly on federal funding to fuel cutting-edge research in fields such as medicine, engineering, and the sciences. During the Trump administration (2017-2021 and potentially again in 2025), tensions with elite academic institutions were often part of broader cultural and political debates. Targeting of university funding has historically occurred during disputes over perceived ideological bias, public accountability, or compliance concerns. The GSA—more commonly known for property management and government procurement—rarely plays a lead role in higher education funding decisions.
Fact Check: Specific Claims
Claim #1: The GSA has authority to direct agencies to end contracts over non-compliance
This claim is misleading and lacks full context. The General Services Administration (GSA) does not have unilateral authority to terminate federal grants or contracts based solely on non-compliance as it pertains to mission areas unrelated to procurement or federal real estate. The GSA mainly manages government real property and provides centralized procurement services to federal agencies. While it can advise on administrative compliance for contracts under its purview, terminating federal academic research grants—especially those from agencies like the NIH or DOE—rests with the granting agency based on programmatic standards codified under OMB guidelines and agency-specific rules.
According to the U.S. Code and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), only the contracting agency has the authority to modify or cancel its contracts. The GSA’s role here would typically be advisory at best. Therefore, the article’s presentation implies more authority than the GSA legally possesses.
Source: U.S. General Services Administration Scope & Mission | GSA.gov
https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/background-and-history
Claim #2: The administration previously froze $2.2 billion of Harvard’s federal funding
This figure appears exaggerated with insufficient documentation. The article claims that the White House halted $2.2 billion in Harvard funding in April, triggering a lawsuit. However, federal spending records and court filings available via USAspending.gov and PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) do not corroborate a freeze of that magnitude. While specific grants may have been put under review—or administrative delays may have occurred—there is no clear evidence that the full $2.2 billion was ever outright frozen.
Harvard University did file lawsuits in the past over federal funding concerns, such as pandemic-era relief loans and immigration rules for international students. But no public documentation confirms the sweeping $2.2 billion freeze. This figure likely amalgamates multiple funding streams and misrepresents their actual status.
Source: USAspending.gov – Search: “Harvard University”
https://www.usaspending.gov
Claim #3: The administration accused Harvard of antisemitism as justification to revoke funding
This claim is partially accurate, but lacks essential context. The article states that a draft letter from the White House justifies the funding removal by accusing Harvard of antisemitism. While it is true that government officials—especially in late 2023 and 2024—criticized several universities for their handling of antisemitic incidents, accusations do not equate to formal findings or legal violations. As of the article’s publication on May 27, 2025, there has been no official DOJ or Department of Education conclusion that Harvard systematically violated civil rights laws due to antisemitism.
Funding decisions based on accusations rather than legal adjudication could face legal pushback. The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights would typically investigate such interstate civil rights claims; they have not concluded a finding implicating Harvard in intentional discrimination as of now.
Therefore, presenting accusation as justification for action appears speculative and lacking concrete legal footing.
Source: U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/index.html
Claim #4: The proposed funding cuts wouldn’t affect Harvard-affiliated hospitals
This claim is likely true, based on how federal hospital and research funding structures operate. Many grants to affiliated hospitals like Massachusetts General Hospital (part of Harvard Medical School’s ecosystem) are issued separately and often tied to essential health services or specific NIH projects. According to NIH databases, core clinical trials and other medical research funding comes under different contract vehicles than core university research grants.
Thus, while there may be overarching political pressure, federal agencies like HHS and NIH retain discretion when evaluating mission-critical funding. Cutting off public health research could trigger major backlash or legal action unless urgently justified.
Source: NIH RePORTER – Grant Funding to MGH
https://reporter.nih.gov/
Conclusion
Our analysis confirms the article contains significant factual claims that are either incomplete or misleading. The BBC accurately reported a politically motivated move to review federal ties with Harvard, but it lacks clarity around the GSA’s legal role and overstates key elements such as the $2.2 billion freeze and antisemitism allegations being legally determinative. The article overall leans into framing that bolsters administrative authority and justification while omitting the challenges and limitations tied to terminating contracts and grants. While Harvard and the administration may be in conflict, not all actions described have occurred within the appropriate legal mechanisms or scope.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
Want to know whether something you read is true or misleading? Download the DBUNK app today to submit your own article for review and get to the truth—fast. Follow us on social media to stay updated on the facts that matter.
