Harvard’s Engineering School Faces a Harsh Reality: Layoffs Amid Federal Funding Cuts
The School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) at Harvard is now confronted with a difficult and painful transition as it announces layoffs due to significant financial pressures. But here’s where it gets controversial: this crisis is not just a Harvard problem—it highlights a broader, fundamental shift in how research universities and the federal government interact, especially under the Trump administration’s policies.
Dean Francis Parkes expressed deep regret over the layoffs, sharing that after more than two decades at SEAS, this decision weighs heavily on him. He noted that drastic reductions in federal research funding and an upcoming hike in the endowment tax have forced the school’s hand. These changes signal a profound realignment in the support systems that universities have traditionally relied on.
The financial strain SEAS is experiencing stems from multiple sources. First, there’s an anticipated drop in operational and facilities funding critical for sustaining research activities. Beyond that, new federal grant distribution policies are expected to tighten the flow of funds, creating further uncertainty.
SEAS operates out of Harvard’s main Cambridge campus and its expanding Allston campus, which is growing rapidly. The layoffs at SEAS come amidst a wave of budget cuts resonating across Harvard’s other schools. Several have shrunk budgets, reduced staff, or aggressively sought alternative funding sources—often turning to corporate sponsors—to make up for the loss of federal support.
Already, SEAS has taken steps to curb expenses by cutting back on sponsoring student conferences, putting capital projects on hold, and freezing salary increases for some faculty and staff. At the same time, the school is pursuing revenue growth by expanding its professional education programs, a move reported earlier in the year. Notably, a court ruling recently restored some funding that had been canceled, providing a small reprieve.
Despite these adjustments, a budget shortfall remained, leading to the painful decision to lay off staff. The administration has not yet clarified which positions are affected or how the cuts might impact ongoing research projects. Parkes emphasized that while these measures set SEAS on a more sustainable course, the reduced team size will inevitably require new ways of working, and there will be less administrative support and fewer services available.
SEAS is integral to Harvard’s educational offerings, encompassing undergraduate and graduate programs in disciplines like applied mathematics, bioengineering, and computer science. Before the layoffs, the school employed 253 staff members.
Interestingly, over one-third of SEAS’s operating revenue comes from sponsored support, mostly federal grants—a share second only to Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, where such funding makes up nearly 60 percent of revenue. Approximately 40 percent of SEAS’s operating budget relies on its endowment, which will take a hit from the new endowment tax set to start next year. This tax raises the rate on endowment income from 1.4 percent to 8 percent for universities with assets exceeding $2 million per student, a policy signed into law by President Trump last July.
Adding fuel to the fire, Harvard’s School of Public Health is bracing for an even more severe cut, anticipating a loss of up to half its federal funding—around $100 million annually. In response, it has begun seeking financial support from private companies to help cover the tuition for its PhD students. Similarly, Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences recently announced a significant reduction in PhD admissions as it reconsiders the future model of graduate education.
The Trump administration has put Harvard under intense scrutiny, targeting the university with demands for sweeping reforms regarding governance, hiring, and admissions policies. Harvard defied these demands back in April, prompting retaliatory measures including the cancellation of nearly $3 billion in research grants, attempts to ban international students, and threats to the university’s accreditation status.
Harvard fought back by suing the government over these punitive actions. So far, the courts have issued rulings favorable to Harvard, including a significant legal victory to restore research funding and an injunction preventing the ban on foreign students. Despite this, the administration remains defiant, vowing to appeal and declaring Harvard ineligible for future grants. Such a stance places the university’s vast research endeavors—worth billions—in jeopardy.
The combined effect of these funding threats and the endowment tax could potentially slash Harvard’s annual revenue by as much as $1 billion, according to estimates from President Alan Garber earlier this year. Harvard continues to negotiate with the administration to restore canceled funds and resolve ongoing investigations. Recently, President Trump hinted at a near deal where Harvard would contribute $500 million toward supporting trade schools, though this announcement was quickly retracted by officials.
And here is the part most people miss: This situation is far more than a financial crunch for Harvard; it represents a fundamental challenge to the traditional model of federally supported academic research and higher education. Should universities rely less on government support and seek more private partnerships? Or does this shift risk compromising academic freedom and research independence? These are questions worth debating.
What do you think about the Trump administration’s approach to reshaping higher education funding? Is this a necessary reform or an overreach? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
For further information, Aidan Ryan can be reached at aidan.ryan@globe.com and followed on Twitter @aidanfitzryan.
