Spotted in: NPR
Topic: Harvard president on Trump funding freeze
Frame Used: Loss Aversion, Interrogating Motives
“But the question to ask is what problem is he trying to solve by doing that?”
— Alan Garber, President of Harvard University, NPR
This quote appeared in an NPR interview.
In May 2025, the federal government proposed withholding research funding from universities like Harvard due to their inclusion of international students on campus. In response, Harvard President Alan Garber spoke with NPR to address the potential impact of the proposed changes, highlight the university’s research contributions, and questioned the rationale behind the shift.
What This Frame Does
This frame does two things. First, it highlights the value of federally funded research by citing tangible breakthrough.
Harvard helped produce GLP-1 drugs for diabetes and gene editing to cure diseases. But more strategically, it frames the proposed cuts as a looming loss for the entire country. This is classic loss aversion: the focus isn’t on what Harvard deserves, but on what the public will lose.
Garber also reframes the entire premise of the administration’s argument by interrogating its logic: “But the question to ask is what problem is he trying to solve by doing that?” That simple sentence flips the burden of justification. Instead of Harvard defending itself, the administration now has to explain its motives and consequences.
But the delivery isn’t flawless. Garber’s argument is long-winded. He tries to do too much at once: defend research, question motives, and cite examples. It risks losing urgency and clarity.
Here’s how a tighter version might land:
The question the Trump Administration needs to ask is what problem they’re trying to solve by cutting research funding.
does research really have anything to with international students?
Our research has brought breakthroughs in gene editing, diabetes treatment, and cancer. He wants to get rid of that? What will that solve?
Rather than say, “The cuts would harm us,” the speaker uses a frame you feel:
- You’re about to lose something valuable you didn’t realize was at risk
- You start questioning the logic behind the policy
- You shift focus from defending an institution to defending national progress
It’s a pivot from reactive defense to loss reframing—and it works even better when delivered with focus.
Why It Works
- Emotion first, logic second
- No technical knowledge required—examples are relatable (cancer, obesity, diabetes)
- Implies urgency without exaggeration
By blending credibility with consequence, Garber avoids sounding self-interested. Instead, he frames the issue as a collective loss for the public good—while flipping the burden of justification onto the administration.
Takeaway for Communicators
If you want your audience to question a harmful proposal, don’t defend yourself. Question the motive behind the change—and make the consequences tangible.
Not: “We need the money.”
Instead: “What problem are you trying to solve—and are you willing to lose these breakthroughs to do it?”