Harvard University might not be as close to settling a deal with the Trump administration as earlier reports had indicated. 

Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, has privately dismissed reports of an imminent $500 million settlement with the administration and is telling faculty the university is prepared to fight its funding dispute in federal court rather than negotiate a deal, the Harvard Crimson reported on Sunday. 

Mr. Garber told faculty members that recent news stories suggesting Harvard was close to agreeing to pay half a billion dollars to restore federal funding were “false,” faculty members told the school newspaper. Mr. Garber, they added, indicated that the $500 million figure was leaked by the White House and said the university is “seriously considering” resolving the matter through litigation.

The unnamed sources contradict recent speculation that Harvard was nearing an agreement with the administration to restore the $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts that were frozen in April. The funding was revoked after Harvard refused to implement sweeping reforms targeting campus antisemitism and diversity programs.

The New York Times reported last week that talks between Harvard and the White House were continuing to “intensify” and that Harvard signaled its willingness to fork over as much as $500 million to place the school back in good standing with the federal government. 

The next day, Harvard’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors called on Mr. Garber to reject any deal that violates the university’s academic freedom and institutional independence. Nine faculty members, including authoritarianism scholar and longtime Trump critic, Steven Levitsky, penned a letter to Mr. Garber, warning him against capitulating to the administration.  The authors laid out “several key values and procedures we trust will be protected” in any settlement, and cited freedom from political influence in hiring, admissions, course content, and use of funds to foster the university’s “inclusive nonpartisan public discussion.”

Harvard University became the face of higher education’s resistance to the Trump administration in April when Mr. Garber refused to implement a list of broad reforms to quash antisemitism and anti-conservative bias on campus. The decision set Harvard apart from Columbia University, which earlier agreed to the government’s demands, though they were less expansive than those asked of Harvard. 

The defiant move triggered a back and forth that resulted in the government freezing $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts and stripping the university of its ability to enroll international students. 

Both measures pose serious challenges to Harvard’s status as a leading research institution and threaten to uproot the school’s day-to-day operations. The university responded later that month by filing lawsuits against the moves in federal court, accusing the government of ignoring due process and of violating the school’s First Amendment rights. 

Harvard and the federal government reportedly opened negotiations in June, raising the possibility that the parties might resolve the legal disputes outside of the classroom. Mr. Trump shared an optimistic Truth Social post that month, stating that “we’ve been working closely with Harvard” and that “it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so.” 

While neither party has provided an update, a deal was thrown into doubt when the university and the Department of Justice squared off in federal court on July 21 to deliver opening arguments for the first of Harvard’s two lawsuits against the administration.

After the judge overseeing the case appeared sympathetic to Harvard’s arguments, Mr. Trump pledged to “immediately appeal” the ruling not if, but “when” Judge Burroughs “rules against us.” The president branded the school “anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America” and vowed to “stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard, much of which had been given without explanation.”

Judge Burroughs has not yet issued a ruling. Harvard is hoping for a verdict before September 3, the deadline set by the federal government for the school to submit “paperwork that would finally close out grant funding,” the university’s legal team wrote in a court filing. 

In the meantime, several of Harvard’s Ivy League peers, including the University of Pennsylvania, Brown University, and Columbia University, have brokered agreements with the federal government to reinstate federal funding. The deals have all included some kind of financial settlement and policy concessions. 

Most recently, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million to the government and $21 million to resolve claims of antisemitic discrimination against Jewish employees. The deal, which was announced on July 24, codified various provisions that the school had already agreed to in March and also established new policies, like providing the government with admissions data on both rejected and admitted students. 

The White House appears to be angling to work out its issues with Harvard through similar channels. Ahead of the July 21 hearing, a White House spokesman reiterated the administration’s preference for negotiating a deal outside of the courts, stating, “We are confident that Harvard will eventually come around and support the president’s vision, and through good-faith conversations and negotiations, a good deal is more than possible.” 

A settlement agreement is likely to please some of Harvard’s top donors, who for weeks have been quietly urging Mr. Garber to restore the schools relationship with the federal government through dialogue, not the courts. Faculty and students, on the other hand, have pitched their support behind Mr. Garber’s resistance, hailing him as something of a folk hero on campus for standing up to the Trump administration.

Harvard officials have not yet responded to the Sun’s request for comment and declined comment when asked by the Crimson.