On August 8, 2025, the Trump administration dramatically escalated its ongoing battle with Harvard University, threatening to seize or relicense hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of patents owned by the prestigious institution. This move, detailed in a letter sent by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to Harvard President Alan Garber and reported by multiple outlets including Reuters, Bloomberg, and CNN, marks an unprecedented use of federal patent law as leverage in a high-stakes dispute over research funding, compliance, and the future of university innovation.
At the heart of the conflict is the Bayh-Dole Act, a bipartisan law signed in 1980 that allows universities to retain ownership of inventions arising from federally funded research, provided they ensure those inventions benefit the American public. As Secretary Lutnick wrote, "The Department places immense value on the groundbreaking scientific and technological advancements that emerge from the Government's partnerships with institutions like Harvard." But, he continued, this partnership comes with a "critical responsibility" for Harvard to ensure its intellectual property, derived from federal funding, is used to maximize benefits to the American people.
The Trump administration’s letter accuses Harvard of breaching these legal and contractual obligations, specifically regarding the requirement that federally funded inventions be manufactured substantially in the United States. As Bloomberg explains, the Commerce Department has now initiated a so-called “march-in” process under the Bayh-Dole Act. This rarely used provision allows the government to either take ownership of patents or grant licenses to third parties if the original recipient is deemed noncompliant.
Harvard has been given until September 5, 2025, to provide a comprehensive list of all patents stemming from federally funded research, including details about how those patents are used and whether any licensing agreements require substantial U.S. manufacturing. Failure to meet these demands could result in the government confiscating the patents or licensing them to others—a threat with serious financial and reputational implications for the university. According to a university website cited by Reuters, Harvard held more than 5,800 patents and had over 900 technology licenses with more than 650 industry partners as of July 1, 2024.
This confrontation is not occurring in a vacuum. The Trump administration has already frozen or stripped away more than $2 billion in federal research funding from Harvard, prompting the university to file suit in April 2025. A U.S. federal court is now considering Harvard’s case, which challenges the legality of a $2.6 billion cut in government support. Meanwhile, negotiations for a possible settlement continue, with the administration reportedly demanding at least $500 million from Harvard for the return of federal funds—a figure Harvard has so far refused, according to Bloomberg.
Harvard’s leadership has responded forcefully to the administration’s latest salvo. A university spokesperson described the actions as “unprecedented retaliation against Harvard for defending its rights and freedoms,” as reported by Bloomberg and UNN. The spokesperson insisted, “We fully comply with the Bayh-Dole Act and are committed to ensuring public access to innovations created as a result of federally funded research at Harvard.” The university has also emphasized its dedication to upholding the law’s requirements and ensuring that the public benefits from its research breakthroughs.
Yet, the Trump administration’s pressure campaign appears to be about more than just compliance. President Donald Trump has made bolstering U.S. manufacturing and economic competitiveness a central theme of his second term, raising tariffs on imports and seeking to ensure that taxpayer-funded inventions translate into American jobs. The administration’s approach has extended to other elite universities as well. Columbia University, for example, agreed in July 2025 to pay over $220 million to settle government claims related to antisemitism, and Brown University has also reached a multimillion-dollar agreement with federal officials.
Critics, however, see a different motive at play. Many civil rights advocates, faculty members, and White House critics argue that the administration’s targeting of Harvard and similar institutions may be a pretext to assert greater federal control, threatening academic freedom and free speech. As The New York Times reported, Harvard was open to spending up to $500 million to settle related claims, highlighting the enormous financial stakes involved.
Harvard has not only faced funding cuts and threats to its patent portfolio. In May 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security barred the university from participating in the Student Exchange Program, and the Trump administration attempted to ban the admission of foreign students—a move later blocked indefinitely by a federal court. These actions, reported by Bloomberg News, have compounded the sense of siege felt by the university community.
Despite the rising tensions, some officials on both sides remain hopeful for a negotiated resolution. Education Secretary Linda McMahon told CNN last month, “While there’s a lawsuit pending with Harvard, and I’m sure that lawsuit will play out, I do hope that Harvard will continue to come to the table with negotiations. Those talks are continuing, and we’d like to have a resolution there, outside of the courts.” McMahon pointed to recent moves by Harvard, such as changes to its campus centers and leadership, as possible signs of goodwill.
The Bayh-Dole Act itself, signed by President Jimmy Carter just weeks before leaving office, was designed to ensure that federally funded inventions would promote U.S. economic health and industrial innovation. Carter said the law “goes far toward strengthening the effectiveness of the patent incentive in stimulating innovation in the United States.” Now, more than four decades later, the law is at the center of a fierce debate over how best to balance public benefit, academic independence, and national interests.
For Harvard, the stakes could hardly be higher. The loss or forced licensing of its patents would not only threaten the university’s financial stability, but could also undermine its role as a global leader in research and innovation. For the Trump administration, the fight is a test of its resolve to ensure taxpayer-funded discoveries serve American interests first.
As the September 5 deadline approaches, all eyes are on Harvard and Washington. Whether the dispute ends in court, at the negotiating table, or with a dramatic federal intervention, the outcome will shape the future of university research, intellectual property rights, and the relationship between academia and government for years to come.