Governor Maura Healey condemned the Trump administration’s $2.2 billion grant freeze to Harvard University, likening it to actions seen in authoritarian regimes. In an appearance on MSNBC’s The Beat, she expressed serious concern over what she described as a politically motivated move intended to punish dissent and manipulate institutions that challenge former President Donald Trump’s views.
Defending Harvard While Condemning Antisemitism and Opposing Trump’s Political Intimidation Tactics
Healey emphasized her background as a civil rights lawyer and former attorney general, asserting that there is absolutely no tolerance for antisemitism in society, especially on college campuses. She acknowledged that Jewish students have faced mistreatment across the country and stressed that universities must address these issues more proactively. However, she defended Harvard’s efforts, claiming the institution has taken significant steps to improve.
Governor Healey Blasts Trump’s Harvard Grant Freeze as Authoritarian Attack on Democracy and Innovation
The governor argued that the funding freeze is not a genuine attempt to tackle antisemitism but rather a broader strategy by Trump to intimidate and silence opposition. She stated that the move is consistent with Trump’s pattern of bullying organizations, from law firms to corporations, and now higher education institutions, to suppress dissenting voices.
Undermining Democracy and Innovation Through Authoritarian Tactics and Education Funding Cuts
Healey drew stark comparisons between Trump’s tactics and those of past authoritarian regimes. She referenced actions like silencing institutions, targeting foreign students, and creating a climate of fear and control. According to her, these tactics threaten democratic norms and institutional independence.
Lastly, Healey highlighted the economic and technological consequences of restricting university funding. She warned that limiting research grants would push American talent overseas and harm the country’s long-term competitiveness. For a political movement claiming to prioritize “America First,” she argued, undercutting education and innovation is counterproductive and damaging.
