[X.com] by @Musa_alGharbi
As I see it, the White House made two big miscalculations here.
First, they went waay to extreme on the demands, and had too many of them, to the point they became self-refuting and compliance became literally impossible, as I noted. In such a scenario, the only possible response is non-compliance. Had they made demands of Harvard that were similar in scope and structure to those made at Columbia (which were also extreme and unacceptable from my POV), there is a decent chance that Harvard could've folded the same way Columbia did.
BUT, their second miscalculation is that, after Columbia capitulated, rather than acknowledging this, thanking them for their cooperation, unlocking the funds, etc. -- instead, they tried to turn the screws even more and ratcheted up their rhetoric and demands. THIS sent a signal to Harvard and other schools that even if it were possible to comply with the Administration's orders (which, again, in this case it literally is not possible), there is no point. Compliance gets you nothing. So why comply?
An administration that wanted to encourage other universities to rapidly fold like Columbia would've tried to create an incentive for this, by rewarding schools who provide easy compliance, and seeking to make an example of those who resist. Instead, they chose to make an example out of Columbia despite the university doing everything they asked and striking a completely conciliatory posture.
Both of these moves left Harvard with few plausible options other than defiance. It's a total self-own on both counts.