The Trump administration is back in the headlines—this time for a different reason. It has sent a letter to Harvard University that caused a stir on campus. The letter warns that Harvard could lose control of some of its patented technologies. The U.S. Commerce Secretary sent the letter to Harvard University. The letter was both an investigation notice and a threat of action, telling Harvard to prove that it (Harvard University) followed the rules of the Bayh–Dole Act or risk losing control of some of its most valuable inventions. This dispute didn’t appear overnight; it stems from a months-long conflict between the Trump administration and Harvard, starting with frozen research funds and growing into a fight over the university’s federally funded patent.
Why the Trump Administration Is Investigating Harvard’s Federally Funded Patents
The current patent dispute is part of a much larger and ongoing clash between Harvard University and the Trump administration.
The tension began in April 2025, when the administration froze more than $2 billion in federal research funding for Harvard. Officials accused the university of failing to adequately address antisemitism on campus, a charge Harvard denied, saying it had strong policies in place to protect all students. This funding freeze was a major blow, as federal grants are a critical source of support for Harvard’s research in medicine, science, and technology.
The Trump administration made some serious accusations, such as
- Financial transparency issues—allegedly not making required disclosures to investors.
- Collusion on student aid—claims Harvard coordinated with other Ivy League schools on financial aid practices.
- Foreign ties concerns—accusations that Harvard programs trained members of the Chinese Communist Party and created national security risks.
The White House also targeted Harvard’s international student programs, attempting to limit or block new foreign students from entering the U.S. to study at the university
On August 8, 2025, the U.S. Commerce Secretary sent a letter launching a formal review of all patents connected to governmental/federal research funding. Claimed that Harvard might have violated the “Bayh–Dole Act.”
The Bayh–Dole Act:
A law that allows universities to keep patents from taxpayer-funded research but requires them to:
- Disclose inventions promptly to the government.
- Make genuine efforts to commercialize them for public benefit.
- The product-based patent is manufactured in the U.S.
What the U.S. Government Could Do Next in the Harvard Patent Dispute
If the allegation is proved in the future, the U.S. government could use its special legal power called “march-in rights.”
March-in rights:
March-in rights are the government’s authority to allow other parties to use inventions developed with public funding, even without the consent of the original inventor or patent holder.
This lets the government either:
- Take over ownership of a patent, or
- Give permission (license) to other companies to use Harvard’s patented invention
- The idea is to make sure the public benefits from inventions made with taxpayer money.
This step is extremely rare—in fact, the government has never before used march-in rights against a major university—so if it happened to Harvard, it would be historic.
What’s Next in the Trump Administration’s Patent Dispute With Harvard
That part means the U.S. Commerce Department gave Harvard a strict deadline—September 5, 2025—to hand over detailed information about all inventions and patents that were created using federal (taxpayer) research money.
The government specifically wants Harvard to provide:
- List of patents done from federally funded research.
- Licensing details—who has been given permission to use these patents and under what terms.
Manufacturing locations—where any products made from these patents are actually being produced (to check if they follow the Bayh–Dole Act’s U.S. manufacturing requirement).
Conclusion:
With a looming deadline and the rare threat of march-in rights, the outcome could set a historic precedent for how the government handles taxpayer-funded research at America’s top universities.