Harvard’s brewing conflict with the Trump administration could come at a steep cost — even for the nation’s richest university.

On April 14, Harvard University President Alan Garber announced the institution would not comply with the administration’s demands, including to “audit” Harvard’s students and faculty for “viewpoint diversity.” The federal government, in response, froze $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts with the university.

According to CNN and multiple other news outlets, the Trump administration has now asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status. If the IRS follows through, it would have severe consequences for the university. The many benefits of nonprofit status include tax-free income on investments and tax deductions for donors, education historian Bruce Kimball told CNBC.

Bloomberg estimated the value of Harvard’s tax benefits in excess of $465 million in 2023.

Nonprofits can lose their tax exemptions if the IRS determines they are engaging in political campaign activity or earning too much income from unrelated activities. Few universities have lost their non-profit status. One of the few examples was Christian institution Bob Jones University, which lost its tax exemption in 1983 for racially discriminatory policies.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told the Washington Post that the IRS started investigating Harvard before President Donald Trump suggested on Truth Social that the university should be taxed as a “political entity.” The Treasury Department did not reply to a request for comment from CNBC.

A Harvard spokesperson told CNBC that the government has “no legal basis to rescind Harvard’s tax exempt status.”

“The government has long exempted universities from taxes in order to support their educational mission,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement. “Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission. It would result in diminished financial aid for students, abandonment of critical medical research programs, and lost opportunities for innovation. The unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America.” 

The federal government has challenged Harvard on yet another front, with the Department of Homeland Security threatening to stop international students from enrolling. The Student and Exchange Visitor Program is administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which falls under the DHS.

International students make up more than a quarter of Harvard’s student body. However, Harvard is less financially dependent on international students than many other U.S. universities as it already offers need-based financial aid to international students in its undergraduate program. Many other universities require international students to pay full tuition.

The Harvard spokesperson declined to comment to CNBC on whether the university would sue the administration over the federal funds or any other grounds. Lawyers Robert Hur of King & Spalding and William Burck of Quinn Emanuel are representing Harvard, stating in a letter to the federal government that its demands violate the First Amendment.

Harvard, the nation’s richest university, has more resources than other academic institutions to fund a long legal battle and weather the storm. However, its massive endowment — which has raised questions during the recent developments — is not a piggy bank.

Harvard has an endowment of nearly $52 billion, averaging $2.1 million in endowed funds per student, according to a study by the National Association of College and University Business Officers, or NACUBO, and asset manager Commonfund.

That size makes it larger than than the GDP of many countries.

The endowment generated a 9.6% return last fiscal year, which ended June 30, according to the university’s latest annual report.

Founded in 1636, Harvard has had more time to accumulate assets as the nation’s oldest university. It also has robust donor base, receiving $368 million in gifts to the endowment in 2024. While the university noted that more than three-quarters of the gifts averaged $150 per donor, Harvard has a history of headline-making donations from ultra-rich alumni.

Kimball, emeritus professor of philosophy and history of education at the Ohio State University, attributes the outsized wealth of elite universities like Harvard to a willingness to invest in riskier assets.

University endowments were traditionally invested very conservatively, but in the early 1950s Harvard shifted its allocation to 60% equities and 40% bonds, taking on more risk and creating the opportunity for more upside.

“Universities that didn’t want to assume the risk fell behind,” Kimball told CNBC in March.

Other universities soon followed suit, with Yale University in the 1990s pioneering what would become the “Yale Model” of investing in alternative assets like hedge funds and natural resources. Though it proved lucrative, only universities with large endowments could afford to take on the risk and due diligence that was needed to succeed in alternative investments, according to Kimball.

According to Harvard’s annual report, the largest chunks of the endowment are allocated to private equity (39%) and hedge funds (32%). Public equities constitute another 14% while real estate and bonds/TIPs make up 5% each. The remainder is divided between cash and other real assets, including natural resources.

The university has made substantial portfolio allocation changes over the past seven years, the report notes. The Harvard Management Company has cut the endowment’s exposure to real estate and natural resources from 25% in 2018 to 6%. These cuts allowed the university to increase its private equity allocation. To limit equity exposure, the endowment has upped its hedge fund investments.

University endowments, though occasionally staggering in size, are not slush funds. The pools are actually made up of hundreds or even thousands of smaller funds, the majority of which are restricted by donors to be dedicated to areas including professorships, scholarships or research.

Harvard has some 14,600 separate funds, 80% of which are restricted to specific purposes including financial aid and professorships. Last fiscal year, the endowment distributed $2.4 billion, 70% of which was subject to donors’ directives.

“Most of that money was put in for a specific purpose,” Scott Bok, former chairman of the University of Pennsylvania, told CNBC in March. “Universities don’t have the ability to break open the proverbial piggy bank and just grab the money in whatever way they want.”

Some of these restrictions are overplayed, according to former Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro.

“It’s true that a lot of money is restricted, but it’s restricted to things you’re going to spend on already like need-based aid, study abroad, libraries,” Bok said previously.

Harvard has $9.6 billion in endowed funds that are not subject to donor restrictions. The annual report notes that “while the University has no intention of doing so,” these assets “could be liquidated in the event of an unexpected disruption” under certain conditions.

Liquidating $9.6 billion in assets, nearly 20% of total endowed funds, would come at the cost of future cash flow, as the university would have less to invest.

Harvard did not respond to CNBC’s queries about increasing endowment spending. Like most universities, it aims to spend around 5% of its endowment every year. Assuming the fund generates high-single-digit investment returns, spending just 5% allows the principal to grow and keep pace with inflation.

For now, Harvard is taking a hard look at its operating budget. In mid-March, the university started taking austerity measures, including a temporary hiring pause and denying admission to graduate students waitlisted for this upcoming fall.

Harvard is also issuing $750 million in taxable bonds due September 2035. This past February, the university issued $244 million in tax-exempt bonds. A slew of universities including Princeton and Colgate are also raising debt this spring.

So far, Moody’s has not updated its top-tier AAA rating for Harvard’s bonds. However, when it comes to higher education as a whole, the ratings agency isn’t so optimistic, lowering its outlook to negative in March.

Target CEO Brian Cornell will meet with the Rev. Al Sharpton this week in New York as the retailer faces calls for a boycott and a slowdown in foot traffic that began after it walked back key diversity, equity and inclusion programs, the civil rights leader told CNBC Wednesday.

The meeting, which Target asked for, comes after some civil rights groups urged consumers not to shop at Target in response to the retailer’s decision to cut back on DEI. While Sharpton has not yet called for a boycott of Target, he has supported efforts from others to stop shopping at the retailer’s stores.

“You can’t have an election come and all of a sudden, change your old positions,” said Sharpton. “If an election determines your commitment to fairness then fine, you have a right to withdraw from us, but then we have a right to withdraw from you.”

The civil rights leader said he would consider calling for a Target boycott if the company doesn’t confirm its commitment to the Black community and pledge to work with and invest in Black-owned businesses.

“I said, ‘If [Cornell] wants to have a candid meeting, we’ll meet,’” Sharpton said of the phone call Target made to his office. “I want to first hear what he has to say.”

A Target spokesman confirmed to CNBC that the company reached out to Sharpton for a meeting and that Cornell will talk to him in New York this week. The company declined further comment.

In January, Target said it would end its three-year DEI goals, no longer share company reports with external diversity-focused groups like the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equity Index and end specific efforts to get more products from Black- and minority-owned businesses on its shelves. 

Just days after the announcement, foot traffic at Target stores started to slow down. Since the week of Jan. 27, Target’s foot traffic has declined for 10 straight weeks compared to the year-ago period, according to Placer.ai, an analytics firm that uses anonymized data from mobile devices to estimate overall visits to locations. Target traffic had been up weekly year over year before the week of Jan. 27.

The metric, which tallies visits to brick-and-mortar locations, does not capture sales in stores or online, but can indicate which retailers are drawing steadier business. While Target has been struggling to grow its sales for months as shoppers watch their spending, the stretch of declining visits came as some civil rights groups and social media users criticized the DEI decision and urged shoppers to spend their money elsewhere.

Target declined to comment on the figures, saying it doesn’t discuss third-party data.

At the convention earlier this month for his civil rights organization, the National Action Network, Sharpton said the group would call for a boycott of PepsiCo if the company didn’t agree to meet with the organization within 21 days. In February, the food and beverage company behind brands like Doritos and Mountain Dew announced it would end its DEI workforce representation goals and transition its chief DEI officer role into another position, among other changes.

This week, leaders from Pepsi met with Sharpton and his team. He did not confirm whether Pepsi made any commitments, but did say it was encouraging that Pepsi’s CEO Ramon Laguarta attended. He added that the two will continue their discussions.

Sharpton’s meetings with companies including PepsiCo and Target — and his openness to boycotts — mark one of the first meaningful efforts to push back against the war conservative activists like Robby Starbuck have waged on DEI. Starbuck, a movie director-turned-activist, has urged companies to drop DEI policies in part by sharing what he considers unflattering information about their initiatives with his social media followers. He has successfully pressured a wide range of corporate giants to rethink their programs.

With its decision to roll back DEI efforts, the cheap chic retailer Target joined Walmart, McDonald’s, Tractor Supply and a slew of others that scrapped at least some DEI initiatives as they grew concerned that the programs could alienate some customers or land them in the crosshairs of President Donald Trump, who has vowed to end every DEI program across the federal government.

Target’s decision contrasted with Costco, which shook off pressure from conservative activists to maintain its DEI programs. Shareholders of the membership-based wholesale club soundly rejected a proposal in late January that requested a report on the risks of DEI initiatives.

NAN has called for so-called “buy-cotts” at Costco, and has brought people to stores in Tennessee, New York and New Jersey. It gave them gift cards to shop with at the warehouse club.

In the month of March, Target’s store traffic declined 6.5%, while the metric rose 7.5% year over year at Costco, Placer.ai data show.

Target’s challenges run deeper than DEI backlash, and resistance to its policy change only added to its issues. The discounter’s annual revenue has been roughly flat for four years in a row as it’s struggled to drive consistent sales gains.

Margins have been under pressure, as consumers buy more of groceries and necessities and less of more profitable categories like home goods and clothing. And the company has pinned its problems on a laundry list of problems in recent years, including having the wrong inventory; losing money from theft, damaged goods and other types of inventory losses; backlash to its collection for Pride Month and pricier costs from rushing shipments.

Competition has grown fiercer too, as big-box rival Walmart has remodeled stores, launched new private brands and attracted more high-income shoppers.

In February, Target gave weak guidance for the first quarter and said it expected sales to grow 1% for the full year. 

In his meeting with Cornell, Sharpton said he will ask for Target to follow through on pledges it made after police killed George Floyd in the company’s hometown of Minneapolis.

“You made commitments based on the George Floyd movement … what changed?” said Sharpton. “Are you trying to say … everything’s fine now, because the election changed? That’s insulting to us.”

In the wake of Floyd’s murder, Cornell said the event moved him.

“That could have been one of my Target team members,” Cornell said in 2021 at an event hosted by the Economic Club of Chicago, recounting his thoughts as he watched the video of Floyd taking his final breaths.

At the time, he said it motivated him to step up Target’s efforts to fight racial inequities.

“We have to be the role models that drive change and our voice is important,” he said at the event. “We’ve got to make sure that we represent our company principles, our values, our company purpose on the issues that are important to our teams.”

French luxury group Hermès will raise its U.S. prices from the start of May in order to offset the impact of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, the company’s finance chief said Thursday.

The company — which earlier this week overtook rival LVMH as the world’s biggest luxury firm by market capitalization — is best-known for its Birkin and Kelly handbags, along with colorful scarves retailing for hundreds of dollars. Other products include jewelry, watches, shoes, perfume and make-up.

“The price increase that we’re going to implement will be just for the U.S. since it’s aimed at offsetting the tariffs that only apply to the American market, so there won’t be price increases in the other regions,” Eric du Halgouët, Hermès’ executive vice president for finance, said during an analyst call that followed the firm’s first-quarter results release on Thursday.

Hermès said prices will rise from May 1 and aim to “fully offset” the impact of the universal 10% tariff imposed by the White House in early April, rather than the 20% duties the European Union may face unless it can negotiate a new deal during Trump’s 90-day reprieve.

U.S. consumers are expected to contend with higher prices on a host of items, ranging from electronics and clothes to cars and houses, as the impact of tariffs bites.

In its first-quarter results, Hermès reported 11% sales growth in the Americas, which accounted for nearly 17% of its sales revenue in the first three months of the year.

First-quarter revenue growth came in at 7% on a constant currency basis overall, just shy of consensus expectations of an 8% to 9% increase, Deutsche Bank analysts said in a note. It also represented a slowdown from 17.6% growth in the fourth quarter of 2024.

The Deutsche Bank analysts said that the results were nonetheless “robust,” with weakness driven by watches and perfume sales, while Citi described them as “a respectable outcome.”

Hermès shares dipped 1.3% in Thursday morning deals, taking its value to 244.5 billion euros ($278.2 billion) — just shy of LVMH’s 245.7 billion euros — according to a CNBC calculation of LSEG data.

LVMH, controlled by France’s billionaire Arnault family, unsuccesfully tried to acquire Hermès a decade ago. Despite drawing level in market cap, Hermès’ annual revenue is less than a fifth that of sprawling LVMH, which owns luxury brands Louis Vuitton and Dior, alcohol business Moët Hennessy, U.S. jeweler Tiffany and beauty chain Sephora.

LVMH on Tuesday reported an unexpected decline in first quarter sales, flagging a fall in its dominant fashion and leather goods division.

Analysts have predicted the luxury sector will be less impacted by tariffs than other retailers due to their ability to pass on increased import costs to a high-spending clientele. However, they would encounter major headwinds from a broad pullback in consumer spending as a result of weaker global economic growth or recessionary fears.

Alphabet’s Google illegally dominated two markets for online advertising technology, a judge ruled Thursday, dealing another blow to the tech giant and paving the way for U.S. antitrust prosecutors to seek a breakup of its advertising products.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, found Google liable for “willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power” in markets for publisher ad servers and the market for ad exchanges, which sit between buyers and sellers. Websites use publisher ad servers to store and manage their ad inventories.

Antitrust enforcers failed to prove a separate claim that Google had a monopoly in advertiser ad networks, she wrote.

Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said Google will appeal the ruling.

“We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half,” she said in a statement, adding that the company disagrees with the decision about its publisher tools. “Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective.’

Google’s shares were down around 2.1% at midday.

The decision clears the way for another hearing to determine what Google must do to restore competition in those markets, such as sell off parts of its business at another trial that has yet to be scheduled.

The Justice Department has said Google should have to sell off at least its Google Ad Manager, which includes the company’s publisher ad server and ad exchange.

However, a Google representative said Thursday that Google was optimistic it would not have to divest part of the business as part of any remedy, given the court’s view that its acquisition of advertising tech companies like DoubleClick were not anticompetitive.

Google still faces the possibility that two U.S. courts will order it to sell assets or change its business practices. A judge in Washington will hold a trial next week on the Justice Department’s request to make Google sell its Chrome browser and take other measures to end its dominance in online search.

Google has previously explored selling off its ad exchange to appease European antitrust regulators, Reuters reported in September.

Brinkema oversaw a three-week trial last year on claims brought by the Justice Department and a coalition of states.

Google used classic monopoly-building tactics of eliminating competitors through acquisitions, locking customers in to using its products and controlling how transactions occurred in the online ad market, prosecutors said at trial.

Google argued the case focused on the past, when it was still working on making its tools able to connect to competitors’ products. Prosecutors also ignored competition from Amazon.com, Comcast and other technology companies as digital ad spending shifted to apps and streaming video, Google’s lawyer said.

The ruling was issued as a district court in Washington, D.C., held its fourth day of an antitrust trial between Meta and the Federal Trade Commission, in which the government similarly accused the company then known as Facebook of monopolizing the social networking market through its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp.

A Google representative said the partially favorable ruling in its case Thursday could point to success for Meta, as well, in defending its acquisitions from the government’s antitrust allegations.