If America’s top tier universities refuse to accept reforms being sought by the Trump administration, where would the billions of dollars in frozen funding go? One idea starting to percolate would be to direct the funds to public colleges and universities, which are meant to serve a broader population and have decreased per-student funding dramatically in the past two decades.

“Public universities and community colleges are the backbone of American education, training our workforce and uplifting communities without the elitist baggage of the Ivies,” the managing director of strategic advocacy firm Nestpoint Associates, John Thomas, tells The New York Sun. “They deserve funding over Ivy League hedge funds that push woke agendas and hoard billions, because they deliver real value to real Americans.  We are better off funding the schools that build America, not the ones that lecture it.” 

This line of thinking, reporting by The New York Sun has found, comes as the Department of Education in Washington has frozen $2.2 billion in federal funding to Harvard University. America’s oldest university, Harvard has an endowment surpassing $50 billion and is refusing to comply with its demands. Beneath the headlines, however, lies a bigger question. What are the indirect costs to the American public and could the money be better spent elsewhere?

“Federal dollars would be better directed to public universities, and underserved communities that prioritize practical education and serve working-class Americans,” Mr. Thomas said. “Elite institutions, with their vast resources, don’t need taxpayer support to fund anti-American curricula or CCP-linked research.”

As elite schools hoard wealth and federal funding, more than 150 rural hospitals have shut down since 2005, and school districts in poor states are laying off teachers and cutting lunch programs, a reality long before the Trump team’s proposed slashing of funds to the Education Department. 

“Wealthy universities exploit a broken system, leveraging their prestige and lobbying power to secure federal grants and loans while sitting on endowments larger than some nations’ GDPs,” Mr. Thomas asserted. “They qualify because outdated funding formulas prioritize research output over need, and federally guaranteed loans fuel tuition inflation without accountability.”

Harvard is one of many elite schools accepting millions, while balking at Washington’s criteria. So, why are America’s wealthiest universities still receiving billions in taxpayer dollars each year? 

Late last month, the Trump administration announced it was scrutinizing $256 million in federal contracts and $8.7 billion in multiyear grants for Harvard, citing insufficient action to curb antisemitism on campus. 

The White House sent Harvard a list of requisites, including changes to hiring, admissions, and teaching, aiming to combat antisemitism. Harvard rejected these orders, arguing they would infringe on its independence and violate free speech rights. 

“Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard,” the university’s President, Alan Garber, said in a statement. 

In response, the Department of Education froze $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to the university, with the United States government highlighting the “troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges.”

New York City’s Columbia University, by contrast, agreed to the Trump administration’s stipulation last month after the White House yanked $400 million in federal funding. 

The attention, however, has highlighted the significant amount of federal government funding received by these institutions. This includes all eight Ivy League universities: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Brown, Dartmouth, University of Pennsylvania, and Cornell. 

Government funding comes in various forms, including research grants, student financial aid, and government contracts. While these schools have substantial endowments, they still rely on federal support for various initiatives, particularly research projects, student loans, and other federal programs.

The Numbers 

To illuminate the wealth of these universities, Harvard’s endowment, at $53 billion, is larger than the Gross Domestic Product of 124 nations. 

Financial reports for 2024 alone disclose that Columbia University received $1.3 billion in federal funding, while the University of Pennsylvania secured $1.8 billion and Yale University received $898.7 million. 

Close behind, Cornell University garnered $825.5 million, with Harvard University receiving $686.5 million. Princeton University reported $455 million, Brown University disclosed more than $254 million, and Dartmouth received $141.9 million, according to USA Spending.

Dean salaries at these top universities further reflect their wealth and prestige. At Harvard Business School, the dean’s annual salary hovers around $1 million, while average dean salaries across the rest of the university are around $222,865. At other universities, dean compensation varies widely, ranging from approximately $216,000 to nearly $670,000, depending on the institution and specific leadership role.

Tuition, Endowments, and the Illusion of Need

How did we get here?

Federal funding for university research began after World War II, with agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the United States Department of Education providing grants that covered both direct research costs and indirect costs, known as overhead. 

Research grants are not considered subsidies because they come with specific requirements for how the funds must be used. For every dollar that Ivy League universities receive for research, however, they typically charge the government an additional 64 cents in overhead costs. 

Overhead includes expenses like building maintenance, utilities, and administrative support, which are not directly linked to the project. 

Initially capped at 8 percent, the rate was gradually increased and eventually uncapped in the mid-1960s, allowing universities to set their own rates using broad cost formulas and raising concerns about transparency and whether research dollars are diverted away from their intended purpose on the taxpayer’s dime. 

After the cap was removed, overhead rates soared — the likes of Stanford University reached 74 percent by 1990 — leading to scandals over funds being spent on perks like yachts and office makeovers. While public pressure forced rates down temporarily, they’ve since climbed back above 60 percent at a number of top schools. 

This led to universities reaping more and more money from tuition while benefiting from generous Washington aid packages. According to The New York Sun tallies, the average sticker price to attend any of the eight Ivy Leagues is approximately $90,400.75 a  year. 

The large sums of government money, however, are not disseminated to those in need. While many students receive aid, most of that assistance is drawn from endowment earnings — money already in the bank. These institutions, meanwhile, continue to receive federal Pell Grant funding and research subsidies designed for struggling schools.

Critics point out that these universities routinely patent and monetize innovations — generating additional profit streams. Taxpayers are essentially funding research for products they may one day have to buy back from the universities at full price. 

Data from the nonprofit government watchdog organization Open the Books also show that many top-tier universities not only accepted substantial federal funding but also actively lobbied for it, maintaining offices at Washington, D.C., where their lobbyists work to secure ongoing government support.

Tax Breaks

Under current United States tax law, university endowments are mainly exempt from taxation. While a small excise tax of 1.4 percent was introduced in 2017 for institutions with endowments exceeding $500,000 per student, its enforcement is minimal, and the tax revenue is insignificant compared to the investment returns these schools generate. 

Donations to these wealthy institutions are fully tax-deductible, benefiting donors, while funds are often directed toward campus expansions, high administrative salaries, and sports facilities instead of supporting scholarships. 

Critics argue that this system is an inefficient use of taxpayer money, especially when public colleges and community institutions, which serve more low-income and first-generation students, remain underfunded.

A senior research Fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy, Jay Greene, tells the Sun that while wealthy universities receive taxpayer money “based on the belief that these wealthy universities contributed to the public good through their research and teaching,” the “wealthy universities generally lack intellectual diversity, engage in ideological indoctrination, and have failed to fulfill their villi rights obligations is changing this assessment and may result in them no longer receiving taxpayer money.”

President Trump this week broke precedent and threatened Harvard University’s tax-exempt status after the school rejected the administration’s demands for a series of policy changes. Others see the work of universities as pivotal, emphasizing that it should be carried out without government interference.

“The fewer requirements the better. If the federal government is going to fund say cancer research, then that money should go to the researchers most likely to advance the science, without having unrelated litmus tests layered on top and potentially distorting who receives the funding,” a research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, Andrew Gillen, tells the Sun.

The Impact

Many proponents of the large grants argue that such funds drive innovation, supporting groundbreaking medical, energy, and national security research that benefits all Americans. 

“The purpose of funding is to keep America on the forefront of technology so we can be competitive on the world stage,” argued California-based attorney, Julian Chan, highlighting that many of the breakthroughs — from cancer research to war crimes data-keeping — happens in the university setting. 

So, what happens next? Mr. Gillen said that, in the short term, these colleges under scrutiny have two choices.

“They can try to cover the lost funding from other revenue sources like their endowment, or they can cut spending,” he continued. “In the long term, after staffing and facilities utilization has adjusted, it would affect the scale of research at these colleges.”

Mr. Greene observed that these institutions have “reputational reasons to conduct research even if doing so does not generate a slush fund for administrators,” but given the way these institutions have functioned for years, losing the money would no doubt be a significant blow to operations. 

“Elite universities like Harvard, with endowments in the tens of billions, have more than enough money to fund their own lab testing and research without taxpayer handouts,” Mr. Thomas added. “The issue is why would they pay for it themselves when they can use taxpayer funds to do it for them.”

The United States Department of Education did not respond to a request for comment.