Yesterday, Harvard University became the first major school in the U.S. to push back against the Trump administration's efforts against colleges and universities.

Last week, the administration told Harvard that nearly $9 billion of its federal funding would be in jeopardy if it didn't change its hiring practices and address allegations of anti-Semitism.

But Harvard rejected that request, writing that, quote, neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.

The administration immediately froze $2 billion in federal grants to the school, and President Trump suggested the school should lose its tax-exempt status if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist-inspired or supporting sickness.

Joining us now is someone from Harvard who supports the university's position.

Cornell William Brooks is a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

Professor Brooks, very good to have you on the program.

Alan Garber, who's the president of university, separately wrote, quote,

although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating anti-Semitism,

the majority represented direct governmental regulation of the intellectual conditions at Harvard.

Is that how you see it? I see it precisely that way, and I have to commend President Garber for taking a financially, fiscally consequential stand, a politically

difficult decision, but one that was made morally simple by the fact that the Trump

administration essentially demanded that Harvard essentially welcomed the government into

the regulation of Harvard, the management of Harvard, the hiring and firing of Harvard,

the emitting of students at Harvard in a way that would be unprecedented. To be clear about this,

this would be like alleging some violation of the law

in terms of a company or a corporation, and thereafter, the government demanding to run that

company, run that corporation. And that is unlawful. It's unconstitutional, and it is profoundly unfair. I hear everything that you're saying,

but as you mentioned, this could be a fiscally very risky proposition. I mean, some argue that it

might be, it's easy to support this idea now, but what happens if there is a suddenly $9 billion

hole in your budget for all of that academic and scientific research.

Won't that make it very difficult to do your essential mission?

...