After President Donald Trump publicly called for Harvard’s tax-exempt status to be revoked, Ivy League universities—many of which have clashed with Trump on political and cultural issues—could face serious consequences. One of the most sweeping and financially significant would be a sudden, unprecedented property tax burden.
In many small New England and Northeastern towns, Ivy League schools are among the largest landowners—which means they’ve long avoided what would otherwise be some of the area’s biggest property tax bills.
For example, in the city of Cambridge, MA, Harvard owns as much as 9.56% of the land there, plus an additional 5.7% in nearby Allston and 0.27% in Boston—even though the university is famously not in Boston.
So, how much would these universities be on the hook for if they had to pay their share of property taxes like local homeowners? The answer is more complicated than one might think.
Why assessing Ivy League property isn’t straightforward
Even if tax-exempt status were revoked, assigning a dollar value to Ivy League–owned property is far from simple, says Kim Rueben, senior adviser at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Unlike standard commercial or residential parcels, much of the land held by these universities is developed with highly specialized buildings—labs, libraries, dormitories, and academic halls—that don’t have obvious market comparisons.
“So there’s the value of the land, and then there’s the overall value of the property, which it’s hard to totally know,” adds Rueben.
Many of these facilities are purpose-built, making their market value unclear. For example, a cutting-edge neuroscience lab or a historic chapel might cost tens of millions to construct, but have little resale value outside the university context.
And even if the buildings were easy to price, disentangling their worth from the universities themselves poses a bigger, more pressing challenge.
In places like Princeton, Cambridge, or Hanover, the institutions aren’t just occupants—they’re economic anchors. The land’s value, in many cases, exists because the university is there.
This feedback loop complicates the already opaque task of assessment. Local governments would need to decide whether to tax these properties like they would a luxury condo or a biotech office park—and how to do so consistently. Without precedent, clear benchmarks, or traditional market sales to rely on, any shift to taxable status would demand a new approach to valuation entirely.
Local benefits offset the tax exemption
While universities may avoid traditional property tax bills, they often contribute to their communities in other ways—through tutoring programs, community partnerships, public health services, and job creation. In many cases, these in-kind contributions support the very services property taxes are meant to fund: public services like health care, education, and public safety.
Most university towns recognize this, and have chosen to opt for Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) agreements or similar arrangements, which scale back requested support from universities.
“The communities are recognizing that there are benefits coming from the [universities], and so they’re decreasing the amount of money that they’re currently asking for,” says Rueben.
The result is a kind of informal balancing act: While Ivy League schools may not pay full taxes, they remain deeply embedded in—and essential to—the fiscal and social fabric of the cities they call home.
Would cities really go after the full tax value?
Even if the federal government were to revoke universities’ tax-exempt status, it’s far from certain that cities and states would move to tax these institutions at full market value. Local governments often weigh more than just lost tax revenue, and consider economic impact, public perception, and legal precedent when weighing new taxes.
For one, taxing these schools suddenly and aggressively could risk souring a mutually beneficial relationship. Plus, there may even be constitutional protections at the state level that complicate or limit taxation efforts.
Harvard University’s rights, for example, are enshrined in the Massachusetts Constitution, which predates both the United States’ Constitution and creation.
To avoid these legal and interpersonal pitfalls, municipalities may continue pursuing partial solutions—like updated PILOT agreements or negotiated contributions—that preserve institutional goodwill while recovering some lost tax revenue.
OK, but what if they did?
Let’s say cities threw caution to the wind. Suppose, given the legal and political green light, municipalities across the Northeast decided to fully tax Ivy League universities for the property they own.
While it’s impossible to calculate their exact tax liability without formal assessments, available estimates suggest that Ivy League schools could collectively owe more than $884 million annually in property taxes.
- Harvard University: $465 million
- Yale University: $157 million
- Columbia University: $179 million
- Brown University: $50 million
- Cornell University: $33 million
- Princeton, Penn, and Dartmouth: Estimates not publicly available
For many of the cities and towns these universities call home, that kind of revenue could be transformative—funding schools, repairing infrastructure, expanding transit, and shoring up essential public services. But taxing these institutions could just as easily disrupt local economies, displacing key talent and weakening the very engines that drive growth.
The debate isn’t just about dollars and cents—it’s political, legal, and deeply entwined with the long-standing, and often symbiotic, relationships between Ivy League campuses and the communities built around them.
