Accounting
Harvard intensifies funding fight with Trump administration
Harvard University sued several U.S. agencies and top officials for freezing billions of dollars in federal funding, significantly ratcheting up a high-stakes showdown with the Trump administration.
The government unlawfully suspended Harvard’s funding after it refused to comply with “unconstitutional demands” to overhaul governance, discipline and hiring policies, as well as diversity programs, lawyers for the university argued in a
“Over the course of the past week, the federal government has taken several actions following Harvard’s refusal to comply with its illegal demands,” the university’s president Alan Garber said. “We filed a lawsuit to halt the funding freeze because it is unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.”
In a statement on the university’s website, Garber cited the government’s pause in federal funding, threats to block an additional $1.1 billion in grants, a crackdown on foreign students, and the possible revocation of Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
The White House is pushing for sweeping changes at the most elite U.S. universities, and has frozen or is reviewing federal funding to Princeton, Cornell, Northwestern and Columbia universities. At Harvard, the government halted $2.2 billion of multiyear grants on April 14, claiming the school failed to enforce civil rights laws to protect Jewish students.
Harvard’s lawsuit claims that the funding freeze violates its First Amendment guarantee of free speech and the Administrative Procedures Act. It asks a judge to bar the U.S. from freezing the funding and declare the government’s actions unconstitutional.
“The government has not — and cannot — identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation,” the lawsuit claims.
The White House and the Education Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon on Tuesday morning emphasized that the government’s actions were designed to protect students’ civil rights rather than infringe on universities’ free speech. She said she hopes Harvard comes back to the table, signaling there may be a path to deescalating the situation.
“We remain open to talking to Harvard, but they responded by filing a lawsuit,” McMahon said in an interview on CNBC.
Trump escalated his fight with Harvard after the school refused to bow to his administration’s demands. Since threatening its funding, Trump suggested the Internal Revenue Service should tax the university as a “political entity,” a move that would significantly hit the school’s finances and make it harder to raise money from wealthy donors.
Government demands
The showdown began last month when the government threatened about $9 billion in federal funding to Harvard. Days later, the administration demanded that Harvard remake its governance, transform admissions and faculty hiring, stop admitting international students hostile to US values and enforce viewpoint diversity.
The government also called for scrapping any hiring preferences based on race or national origin, adopting a broad ban on masks and adding oversight for “biased programs that fuel antisemitism.”
Harvard rejected those demands on April 14, saying it “will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights” and that a private university “cannot allow itself to be taken over” by the U.S. government.
McMahon said on CNBC that the demand letter to Harvard was a “point of negotiation” and that she had hoped the university would “come back to the table.”
As part of its legal team, Harvard has hired two conservative lawyers with connections to the Trump administration — William Burck and Robert Hur. Harvard also tapped a lobbying firm, Ballard Partners, where Trump’s chief of staff used to be a partner. The school also named John Manning, a
“The government has only ratcheted up cuts to funding, investigations and threats that will hurt students from every state in the country and around the world, as well as research that improves the lives of millions of Americans,” the complaint claims.
The school has a $53 billion endowment but that money is restricted in how it can be spent, meaning the university relies on federal funding. Without that support, the school said in its complaint, it will be forced to either reduce or halt ongoing research projects and terminate employment contracts with researchers, staff and administrators, or make other cuts to departments or programs.
Campuses across the U.S. were roiled by protests after Hamas, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization, murdered 1,200 Israelis and took more than 200 hostages in October 2023. Israel’s retaliation against Hamas in Gaza has killed more than 48,000 Palestinians, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.
Other university leaders, including Princeton’s, have expressed support for Harvard’s stance, but they also face pressure from the White House. The administration has already canceled $400 million in federal money to Columbia University and frozen dozens of research contracts at Princeton, Cornell and Northwestern universities.
“All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: allow the government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution’s ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries and innovative solutions,” Harvard argued in its lawsuit.
Presidents of some of the most prestigious universities and small colleges signed a joint letter opposing “undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses,” according to a
“As leaders of America’s colleges, universities and scholarly societies, we speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education,” according to the letter, signed by leaders of schools including Princeton, Amherst College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Harvard named several cabinet secretaries as defendants in the lawsuit, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose agency, Health and Human Services, funds the most research, as well as other agencies including the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
The case is President and Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al, 25-cv-11048, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).
Over the last few years, AI has gone from being a novelty to a mission-critical business strategy for many accountants. Innovative, forward-thinking firms are using these tools to streamline manual tasks, ensure compliance and provide the best possible service to their clients. According to the 2025 Intuit QuickBooks
Processing Content
However, AI adoption is at varying levels across the industry. While nearly every firm has begun experimenting with basic AI tools, many remain in a sandbox phase, hesitant to move toward full-scale integration due to perceived complexity or costs.No matter where you may fall on the integration spectrum, the fact remains: AI is rapidly reshaping the accounting industry. If you’ve delayed AI adoption in your business, you’ll want to create a focused plan to catch up.
Time is of the essence, but don’t sacrifice strategy for speed
Firms that are ready to take the leap from casual use to deep integration may find themselves in need of accelerated adoption, but speed should not come at the cost of strategy. Identify tangible, practical ways that easy-to-use tools can impact your business through automation. Having a strong strategic focus allows firms to implement workflow changes to streamline manual tasks, ensure compliance and provide excellent service to your clients.
To begin your AI journey, here is a four-step plan that firms can use to transition from experimentation to execution, in a safe, practical manner:
Step 1: Kick off your first AI project
As is the case with many things, getting started is often the most challenging step. While enthusiasm is high, uncertainty with implementation risks can cause hesitation. The key is to lower risk by embracing AI and implementing an intentional, phased approach. Begin by weaving AI tools into high-impact, low-risk tasks, such as summarizing meeting notes, drafting client or firm-wide memos, or translating complex concepts into easy-to-understand ideas. Monitor results carefully and, if these initial attempts need adjustment, be prepared to pivot to the next use case until you can clearly demonstrate that AI systems are delivering a measurable impact on your operations. From there, you can learn from early experiences, adapt strategy, and scale appropriately to complete more complex projects.
Step 2: Dig into your AI toolkit
The marketplace is crowded with AI-powered tools that promise to do everything from enhancing your workflows to improving the customer experience. It can be hard to know which ones are worth investing your time and money. Find a trusted source like a respected peer, or leverage your professional network to help discuss the tools that may be the best fit for achieving your business goals. You can also look within the tools you’re already using to see if they offer AI-powered features, which can help ease into the transition. Additionally, look for free high-quality education to upskill your team. For example, Anthropic offers a Claude AI University that provides excellent foundational resources for moving beyond basic prompts.
Step 3: Review an AI security checklist
An important element in AI implementation is security. With AI tools needing access to firm and client data to function, it leads to questions of how the data will be protected. This makes the right AI and cybersecurity strategy critical. Firms must proactively ensure that client data remains protected from today’s increasingly sophisticated threats by embracing an established cybersecurity framework such as
Step 4: Openly discuss AI usage with your clients
Once you’ve established the best way to use AI tools that meet your firm’s needs, you’ll want to communicate all of the advantages afforded by these tools to your clients. Make sure you highlight the benefits and simultaneously ensure you are addressing any potential concerns. It’s also important to get explicit consent from all clients if you’re sharing their information with the third-party tools you may use. While this might seem like an extra step, it will go a long way toward fostering a greater level of transparency and deepen trust between you and your clients.
Don’t get left behind
Adopting AI does not have to be intimidating, expensive or overly complex. Think of it as a strategic business move that will not only keep you competitive, but will potentially free you up to focus on keeping clients happy and growing your practice. By strategically focusing on these best practices, identifying AI use cases in a phased approach, evaluating the right tools for your business, ensuring client information is secure and clearly communicating your AI strategy, you’ll be AI-ready in no time.
The Financial Accounting Standards Board met this week to discuss its projects on accounting for transfers of cryptocurrency assets and enhancing the disclosures around certain digital assets, such as stablecoins.
Processing Content
During Wednesday’s meeting, FASB’s board made certain tentative decisions, according to a
At a future meeting, the board plans to consider clarifying the derecognition guidance for crypto transfer arrangements to assess whether the control of a crypto asset has been transferred.
FASB also began deliberations on the
The board decided to provide illustrative examples in Topic 230, Statement of Cash Flows, to clarify whether certain digital assets such as stablecoins can meet the definition of cash equivalents. It also decided to include the following concepts in the illustrative examples:
- Interpretive explanations that link to the current cash equivalents definition;
- The amount and composition of reserve assets; and,
- The nature of qualifying on-demand, contractual cash redemption rights directly with the issuer.
FASB plans to clarify that an entity should consider compliance with relevant laws and regulations when it’s creating a policy concerning which assets that satisfy the Master Glossary definition of the term “cash equivalents“ will be treated as cash equivalents.
“I agree with the staff suggestion to look at examples,” said FASB vice chair Hillary Salo. “From my perspective, I think that is going to help level the playing field. People have been making reasonable judgments. I agree with that. And I think that this is really going to help show those goalposts or guardrails of what types of stablecoins would be in the scope of cash equivalents, and which ones would not be in the scope of cash equivalents. I certainly appreciate that approach, and I think it has the least potential impact of unintended consequences, because I do agree with my fellow board members that we shouldn’t be changing the definition of cash equivalents, and it’s a high bar to get into the cash equivalent definition.”
“I’m definitely supportive of not changing the definition of cash equivalents,” said FASB chair Richard Jones. “I believe that’s settled GAAP in a way, and we’re not really seeing a call to change it for broader issues. I am supportive of the example-based approach. The challenge with examples, though, is everybody’s going to want their exact pattern, but that’s not what we’re doing.”
The examples will explain the rationale for how digital assets such as stablecoins do or do not qualify as cash equivalents and give a roadmap for other types of digital assets with varying fact patterns to be able to apply.
“We really don’t want to be as a board facing a situation where something was a cash equivalent and then no longer is at a later date,” said Jones. “That’s not good for anyone, so keeping it as a high bar with certain rigid criteria, I think, is fine.”
Stablecoins are supposed to be pegged to fiat currencies such as U.S. dollars and thus provide more stability to investors. “In my view, while a stablecoin may meet the accounting definition established for cash equivalents, not every one of those stablecoins in the cash equivalent classification represents the same level of risk,” said FASB member Joyce Joseph.
She noted that the capital markets recognize the distinctions and have established a Stablecoin Stability Assessment Framework to evaluate a stablecoin’s ability to maintain its peg to a fiat currency. Such assessments look at the legal and regulatory framework associated with the stablecoin, and provide investors with information that could enable them to do forward-looking assessments about the stability of the stablecoin.
“However, for an investor to consider and utilize such information for a company analysis the financial statement disclosures would need to include information about the stablecoin itself,” Joseph added. “In outreach, the staff learned that investors supported classifying certain stablecoins as cash equivalents when transparent information is available about the entities at which the reserve assets are held. Therefore, in my view, taking all of this into consideration a relevant and informative company disclosure would include providing investors with the name of the stablecoin and the amount of the stablecoin that is classified as a cash equivalent, so investors can independently assess the liquidity risks more meaningfully and more comprehensively by utilizing broader information that is available in the capital markets and its emerging information.”
Such information could include the issuer, reserves, governance and management, she noted, so investors would get a more holistic look at the risks that holding the stablecoin would entail for a given company.
The board decided to require all entities to disclose the significant classes and related amounts of cash equivalents on an annual basis for each period that a statement of financial position is presented.
Entities should apply the amendments related to the classification of certain digital assets as cash equivalents on a modified prospective basis as of the beginning of the annual reporting period in the year of adoption.
FASB decided that entities should apply the amendments related to the disclosure of the significant classes and amounts of cash equivalents on a prospective basis as of the date of the most recent statement of financial position presented in the period of adoption.
The board will allow early adoption in both interim and annual reporting periods in which financial statements have not been issued or made available for issuance.
FASB also decided to permit entities to adopt the amendments to be illustrated in the examples related to the classification of certain digital assets as cash equivalents without the need to perform a preferability assessment as described in Topic 250, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections.
The board directed the staff to draft a proposed accounting standards update to be voted on by written ballot. The proposed update will have a 90-day comment period.
Senators introduced several pieces of tax-related legislation this week, including measures aimed at improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service, cracking down on tax evasion and curbing the carried interest tax break, in addition to efforts in the House to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act.
Processing Content
Senators Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, and Mark Warner, D-Virginia, teamed up on introducing a bipartisan bill, the
The bill would establish a dashboard to inform taxpayers of backlogs and wait times; expand electronic access to information and refunds; expand callback technology and online accounts; and inform individuals facing economic hardship about collection alternatives.
“Taxpayers deserve a simple, stress-free experience when dealing with the IRS,” Cassidy said in a statement Wednesday. “This bill makes the process quicker and easier for taxpayers to get the information they need.”
He also mentioned the bill during a
“I’m happy to meet with the team … and do all I can to make it as good as you want it to be,” said Bisignano.
“My bill would equip the IRS with the legislative mandate to create an online dashboard so that taxpayers can monitor average call wait time and budget time accordingly,” said Cassidy. He noted that the bill would allow a callback for taxpayers that might need to wait longer than five minutes to speak to a representative, and establish a program to identify and support taxpayers struggling to make ends meet by providing information about alternative payment methods, such as installments, partial payments and offers in compromise.
“I know people are kind of desperate and don’t know where to turn for cash, so I think this could really ease anxiety,” he added. “This legislation is bipartisan and is likely to pass this Congress.”
Cassidy and Warner
“Taxpayers shouldn’t have to jump through hoops to get basic answers from the IRS — and in the last year, those challenges have only gotten worse,” Warner said in a statement. “I am glad to reintroduce this bipartisan legislation on Tax Day to ease some of this frustration by increasing clear communication and making IRS resources more readily available.”
Stop CHEATERS Act
Also on Tax Day, a group of Senate Democrats and an independent who usually caucuses with Democrats teamed up to introduce the Stop Corporations and High Earners from Avoiding Taxes and Enforce the Rules Strictly (Stop CHEATERS) Act.
Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, joined with Senators Angus King, I-Maine, Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island. The bill would provide additional funding for the IRS to strengthen and expand tax collection services and systems and crack down on tax cheating by the wealthy.
“Wealthy tax cheats and scofflaw corporations are stealing billions and billions from the American people by refusing to pay what they legally owe, and far too many of them are getting a free pass because Republicans gutted the enforcement capacity of the IRS,” Wyden said in a statement. “A rich tax cheat who shelters mountains of cash among a web of shell companies and passthroughs is likelier to be struck by lightning than face an IRS audit, and Republicans want to keep it that way. This bill is about making sure the IRS has the resources it needs to go after wealthy tax cheats while improving customer service for the vast majority of American taxpayers who follow the law every year.”
Earlier this week. Wyden also
The Stop CHEATERS Act would provide the IRS with additional funding for tax enforcement focused upon high-income tax evasion, technology operations support, systems modernization, and taxpayer services like free tax-payer assistance.
“As Congress seeks ways to fund much-needed policy priorities and address our growing national debt, there is one common sense solution that should have unanimous bipartisan support: let’s enforce the tax laws already on the books,” said King in a statement. “Our legislation will make sure the IRS has the resources it needs to confront the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid – while ensuring that our tax enforcement professionals are focused on the high-income earners who account for the most tax evasion. This is a serious problem with an easy solution; let’s pass this legislation and make sure every American pays what they owe in taxes.”
Carried interest
Wyden, King and Whitehouse also teamed up on another bill Thursday to close the carried interest tax break for hedge fund managers that
Carried interest is a form of compensation received by a fund manager in exchange for investment management services, according to a
Under the bill, the
“Our tax code is rigged to favor ultra-wealthy investors who know how to game the system to dodge paying a fair share, and there is no better example of how it works in practice than the carried interest loophole,” Wyden said in a statement. “For several decades now we’ve had a tax system that rewards the accumulation of wealth by the rich while punishing middle-class wage earners, and the effect of that system has been the strangulation of prosperity and opportunity for everybody but the ultra-wealthy. There are a lot of problems to fix to restore fairness and common sense to our tax code, and closing the carried interest loophole is a great place to start.”
Repealing Corporate Transparency Act
The House Financial Services Committee is also planning to markup a bill next Tuesday that would fully repeal the Corporate Transparency Act, which has already been significantly
If enacted, the repeal would eliminate beneficial ownership reporting requirements, removing a transparency measure designed to help law enforcement and national security officials identify who is behind U.S. companies.
“This repeal would turn the United States back into one of the easiest places in the world to set up anonymous shell companies, something Congress worked for years to fix,” said Erica Hanichak, deputy director of the FACT Coalition, in a statement. “These entities are routinely used to facilitate corruption, financial crime, and abuse. Rolling back the CTA doesn’t just weaken transparency, it signals to bad actors around the world that the U.S. is once again open for illicit business.”
Gen X can’t retire on time as inflation outpaces wages, survey finds
Are you ready for it? 4 steps to successfully integrate AI into your operations
What that means for consumer loans
Armanino adds Strategic Accounting Outsourced Solutions
New 2023 K-1 instructions stir the CAMT pot for partnerships and corporations
