Internal White House emails obtained in court filings reveal a rapid, coordinated attempt by senior Trump administration officials to publicly shame and financially punish universities. On March 18, top staff received a directive from President Trump via Senior Policy Strategist May Mailman, working closely with Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, to “get something going on Twitter” targeting San Jose State University and the University of Pennsylvania. According to a newly obtained exchange, Trump told aides he “wants to see more action against universities,” prompting the communications team to craft rapid-response social media content accusing campuses of hosting trans athletes in women’s sports teams.
May Mailman’s email included draft social media copy such as “we have paused ALL grant awards to San Jose State which continued to play a male athlete on the female volleyball team,” and a second version targeting Penn for permitting a trans swimmer. Mailman looped in Communications Director Steven Cheung and Deputy Communications Directors Alex Pfeiffer and Kaelan Dorr, urging them: “Per Stephen, we need to get this on social media TODAY.” Federal Acquisition Service Commissioner Josh Gruenbaum was also added.
Gruenbaum coordinated with various departments, noting that the move would pause roughly $100,000 in EPA funding for San Jose State and potentially another $1 million. He warned colleagues about optics involving national security and health grants, but the White House decided to execute the freeze regardless. One email stated: “If you all deem we should turn this back on, we can do that immediately… it’s just a simple email.”
This pressure campaign followed previous high-profile funding actions against Columbia University—which had hundreds of millions in grants pulled over antisemitism allegations—and 59 other institutions. Over the weeks that followed, similar freezes hit Brown, Cornell, Northwestern, and Princeton. In April, the University of Pennsylvania became the first to publicly acknowledge violations of Title IX rules. It reportedly agreed to ban transgender athletes from women's sports and issue personal apology letters to affected swimmers. Soon after, approximately $175 million in withheld funds were restored, a White House source confirmed.
The administration defended these moves as enforcement of civil rights laws, with Education Secretary Linda McMahon calling it “the Trump effect in action.” Yet Harvard remains embroiled in uncertainty, awaiting possible settlement even as billions in federal research dollars hang in the balance.
In April, several elite schools—including Cornell, Northwestern, Columbia, and Harvard—reported abrupt freezes impacting billions in NIH and Defense Department grants. Many learned of the cuts through social media or brief notifications rather than formal agency letters, with key research programs abruptly halted. Critics raised alarm over the legality of these actions, citing constitutional protections for academic freedom and free speech.
One Ivy League leader condemned the approach as “illegal under Title VI” and unconstitutional under the First Amendment, urging universities to take legal action. Others have openly resisted or sought court injunctions. Meanwhile, students and faculty report disrupted research, delayed projects, scaled-back programs, and job cuts—with one professor describing terminated grants as “around the edges” that actually represented her entire career in public health.
The use of federal funding as leverage to enforce ideological or policy compliance has sparked intense backlash across academia, legal experts, and across the political spectrum. Many campus leaders now face a stark choice: comply, fight back legally, or find alternative funding sources to sustain critical research. The unfolding situation continues to raise questions about the appropriate limits of executive influence over academic institutions—and whether political pressure will permanently reshape higher education policy and funding.
