Harvard challenges Trump administration in court over cancelled research funding
The court hearing before US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston stretched more than two hours but ended without a ruling. The case marks a high-stakes flashpoint in the administration's broader push to reshape US higher education through funding leverage.
DOJ DEFENDS FUNDING CANCELLATION
Michael Velchik, a senior lawyer for the US Justice Department, argued the cancelled grants reflected a government priority to stop supporting institutions that "tolerate antisemitism".
'Harvard prioritized campus protestors over cancer research,' Velchik said, while asserting the matter should be handled by the US Court of Federal Claims, which hears monetary disputes.
The administration said Harvard's rejection of an April list of demands triggered a wave of cancellations, including the suspension of hundreds of research grants. It accused the university of failing to adequately respond to reports of antisemitic harassment on campus.
RESEARCH AT RISK
Harvard, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, says the funding cuts threaten hundreds of research projects, including those focused on cancer, infectious diseases and Parkinson's.
Steven Lehotsky, a lawyer representing Harvard, said the administration was using antisemitism as a pretext for broader ideological retaliation.
"The administration has given no consideration to patients, the public at large, and the harm of all this research being cut off," Lehotsky told the court.
JUDGE QUESTIONS LEGAL BASIS
Judge Burroughs expressed scepticism over the government's assertion that it could cancel grants on broad policy grounds without a formal process.
"That's a major stumbling block for me," she said, adding that if funding could be cut over issues related to speech, the constitutional consequences would be 'staggering.'
Burroughs, an Obama appointee, has already barred the administration from ending Harvard's ability to host international students in a separate case. She is expected to issue a written ruling in the funding case in the coming weeks.
GOVERNANCE DEMANDS SPARKED CONFLICT
The administration's push to defund Harvard followed its refusal to comply with demands issued in an April 11 letter by a White House task force. The letter called for sweeping changes including governance restructuring, revised admissions and hiring practices to ensure ideological diversity, and the termination of select academic programmes.
Harvard has said the demands overstepped legitimate concerns about antisemitism and aimed instead to control academic speech, in violation of First Amendment protections.
University President Alan Garber said the cuts could cost the school nearly US$1 billion annually, forcing layoffs and hiring freezes. The amount includes the cancelled multi-year federal research grants.
TAX PENALTIES ADDED TO PRESSURE
As part of Trump's spending and tax legislation, the Republican-led Congress also raised the federal excise tax on Harvard's US$53 billion endowment income from 1.4 per cent to 8 per cent. Endowment income accounts for 40 per cent of Harvard's operating budget.
Garber said the school has taken steps to support Jewish and Israeli students who faced 'vicious and reprehensible' treatment following the outbreak of war between Israel and Hamas in October 2023.
But he maintained that the administration's measures extended far beyond the issue of antisemitism and amounted to unconstitutional interference in Harvard's academic independence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
17 minutes ago
- CNA
Commentary: Will Indonesia regret its trade deal with Trump?
JAKARTA: Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true. That ancient proverb comes to mind when considering the eagerness of America's trade partners around the world to negotiate deals with United States President Donald Trump's administration. Four countries already have, with Indonesia the latest to do so – and possibly the first to regret it. The United States has announced a complex, tiered tariff regime, including a 25 per cent tariff on labour-intensive goods such as textiles and footwear, a 40 per cent tariff on goods suspected of being 'trans-shipped' or having content of Chinese origin, and a 50 per cent tariff on so-called 'strategic sectors', including aluminum, copper, semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. An additional 10 per cent levy applies to exports from BRICS countries (including Indonesia). Countries might also face anti-dumping duties, which are often steep, politically driven and inconsistently applied. While these measures hurt US importers and consumers the most, they also significantly heighten uncertainty for exporters. By guaranteeing that Indonesia will not face tariffs exceeding 19 per cent on its exports to the US through 2029, its new agreement with the US seems to mitigate this uncertainty, providing a level of protection against Trump's tariff escalations. Indonesia can now rest assured that it will not face the kinds of extreme tariffs to which China has been subjected. A DEAL THAT REDUCES LOSSES WITHOUT DELIVERING GAINS Indonesia's government argues that such a deal was essential, because even though the US accounts for only 9.9 per cent of Indonesia's total exports, the trade relationship is disproportionately important. Indonesian exports to the US – including apparel, footwear, furniture, rubber products and integrated circuits – are labour-intensive, they note, and thus support a substantial number of jobs. But these sectors may remain vulnerable to higher tariffs. As it stands, it is not clear whether the 19 per cent cap applies to all Indonesian exports, or if some products – particularly those containing Chinese inputs – could still be subject to steeper duties. In any case, 19 per cent tariffs are very burdensome, and Indonesia has also agreed to impose no tariffs on US goods. At best, the deal reduces losses; it does not deliver gains. Moreover, to secure this dubious victory, Indonesia reportedly agreed to purchase 50 Boeing aircraft and commit to importing US$15 billion worth of US energy products (nearly 40 per cent of Indonesia's total energy imports) and US$4.5 billion worth of American agricultural products. But many important questions remain unanswered. How will these purchases be financed, and on what terms? What are the specifications, unit costs and delivery timelines? Who will oversee procurement, and how will transparency be ensured? Most important, if these exchanges are merely political gestures, they could turn out to be economically damaging. The use of jets from Boeing, which has faced a string of quality and safety scandals in recent years, could create considerable risks for Indonesia's airlines. And imports of US agricultural goods risk undercutting local farmers and breaching commitments to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), as well as other trade agreements. IMPACT ON INDONESIA'S TRADE RELATIONS The deal might affect Indonesia's trade relationships in other ways. Indonesia has concluded comprehensive trade agreements with several major partners, including Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. It is close to finalising one with the European Union, and it recently launched negotiations with the United Arab Emirates. If US firms are granted preferential treatment and zero-tariff market access, these partners might question Indonesia's commitment to fair competition – or demand comparable terms. Beyond trade, the agreement risks eroding Indonesia's carefully maintained strategic neutrality. Indonesia has long sought to balance its relationships with the US and China, but this deal could be seen as a lurch toward the US, exposing the country to escalating pressure to choose a side. As Indonesia becomes increasingly politically entangled with one giant – with far-reaching economic and strategic consequences – it is at risk of becoming economically dependent on the other. Over the past decade, Indonesia's trade with China has more than doubled, reflecting deepening economic ties. While Indonesia exports mostly commodities and processed metals to China – especially nickel, iron and steel, mineral fuels and vegetable oils – it imports high-value machinery, electrical equipment, vehicles and plastics from the country. In the face of challenging trade relations with the world's two mightiest powers, Indonesia's government deserves credit for seeking trade assurances. But the deal that it secured with the US lacks clarity, transparency, mutuality, and strategic vision. As a result, it may turn out to be largely symbolic, bringing only a slight reduction in short-term costs. In the long term, it might prove economically and even geopolitically damaging. AVOIDING DEPENDENCE ON A SINGLE PARTNER Three urgent steps can help prevent this outcome. First, Indonesia's government must demand full clarity from the US on the 19 per cent tariff cap: Are all its exports shielded from Trump's sector-specific classifications, or is the real cost of the deal hidden in the fine print? Second, the authorities should publish the full details of their procurement commitments, particularly the purchase of Boeing aircraft and US agricultural and energy products, so that these commitments' financial implications and strategic value can be assessed. Finally, Indonesia must reaffirm a long-term trade strategy anchored in diversification, rules-based agreements, and regional leadership. Above all, it needs a strategy that avoids excessive dependence on any single partner and preserves its autonomy in an increasingly polarised global economy. Only then can Indonesia ensure that a handshake in Washington does not become a handcuff at home.
Straits Times
4 hours ago
- Straits Times
Key dates in the US and UNESCO's on-again, off-again relationship
UNESCO logo and U.S. flag are seen in this illustration taken April 23, 2025. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration Once again, the U.S. has said it will pull out of the United Nations culture and education agency UNESCO, with U.S. President Donald Trump repeating a move from his first term in office that his successor, Joe Biden, had reversed. Here are some important dates in the sometimes tumultuous relationship between the U.S. and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: * November 16, 1945: UNESCO's founding treaty is signed and its constitution is adopted in London, saying it intends to advance "international peace" and "the common welfare of mankind." * September 30, 1946: The U.S. ratifies the UNESCO treaty, becoming one of its founding member states. * June 1977: Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Two found dead after fire in Toa Payoh flat Singapore Singaporeans aged 21 to 59 can claim $600 SG60 vouchers from July 22 Singapore Singaporeans continue to hold world's most powerful passport in latest ranking Singapore Singapore, Vietnam agree to step up defence ties, dialogue between leaders Asia Malaysia govt's reform pledge tested as DAP chief bows over unresolved 2009 death of political aide Tech Singapore to increase pool of early adopters in AI to complement data scientists, engineers Singapore Prosecution says judge who acquitted duo of bribing ex-LTA official had copied defence arguments Singapore Ports and planes: The 2 Singapore firms helping to keep the world moving The Fund for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage of Outstanding Universal Value, also called the World Heritage Fund, is established under UNESCO. It provides millions of dollars to support conservation programs at UNESCO-designated sites. * October 1979: The first 45 sites are inscribed on UNESCO's World Heritage List, including three from the U.S.: the Grand Canyon in Arizona, Florida's Everglades National Park and Independence Hall in Philadelphia. * December 30, 1983: U.S. President Ronald Reagan's administration announces that the U.S. is withdrawing from UNESCO, effective December 1984, saying it had become "politicized," financially mismanaged, unduly focused on weapons disarmament during the Cold War and hostile to free markets and a free press. * October 1984: The Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor and California's Yosemite National Park are inscribed on the World Heritage List. * 1985–2003: Despite the U.S. withdrawal, UNESCO continues to add U.S. sites and cultural heritages to the World Heritage List, including Hawaii Volcanoes National Park; Thomas Jefferson's home Monticello in Virginia and the Chaco Culture of the Pueblo people who occupied what is now a large region in the U.S. Southwest. * April 1994: U.S. Congress passes a law that blocks U.S. financing for any U.N. agency that accepts the State of Palestine as a full member. * September 12, 2002: U.S. President George W. Bush announces in a speech to the UN General Assembly that the U.S. will rejoin UNESCO, citing leadership reforms in recent years as he sought to build international support for the Iraq War. It does so formally the following year. * October 31, 2011: UNESCO accepts Palestine as its 195th full member, despite the risk of losing U.S. funds, which at the time reportedly accounted for about 22% of UNESCO's budget. U.S. President Barack Obama's administration, which had unsuccessfully sought to get Congress to relax the 1994 financing law in the runup to the vote on Palestinian membership, ends U.S. funding. * October 12, 2017: Trump's administration announces the U.S. will once again leave UNESCO, this time for what it called "anti-Israel bias." The U.S. became a non-member observer. * June 2023: Biden's administration announces it will rejoin UNESCO, saying the agency had "modernized its management and reduced political tensions." * July 22, 2025: Trump's administration announces the U.S. again will leave UNESCO for the third time, because of his government's belief that it "supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes." REUTERS
CNA
4 hours ago
- CNA
Trump calls Epstein case a 'witch hunt', urges Maxwell cooperation with DOJ
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump on Tuesday (Jul 22) said it would be appropriate for prosecutors to interview Ghislaine Maxwell, calling the continued scrutiny of the late Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking case a 'witch hunt'. 'I think it's time to hear everything. It's a witch hunt against the wrong people. Let's get to the truth,' Trump said in the Oval Office, referencing public pressure from his supporters to unseal additional Epstein case records. The remarks came as the Justice Department confirmed it had asked Maxwell's legal team whether she would be willing to speak with prosecutors, with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche saying he expected to meet with her 'in the coming days'. Maxwell, a British socialite and former associate of Epstein, is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence after being convicted in 2021 of helping Epstein recruit and groom underage girls for abuse. 'President Trump has told us to release all credible evidence,' Blanche posted on X, formerly Twitter. 'If Ms Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and DOJ will hear what she has to say.' JULY 29 DEADLINE SET Two federal judges in New York on Tuesday gave the Justice Department until Jul 29 to provide detailed arguments justifying its request to unseal grand jury records tied to the Epstein and Maxwell cases. They also instructed parties in the case, including Maxwell, a representative for Epstein, and alleged victims, to submit their positions on the matter by Aug 5. In a statement, Maxwell's attorney David Oscar Markus confirmed they were in talks with prosecutors. 'Ghislaine will always testify truthfully. We are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.' Maxwell did not testify at her trial and is appealing her conviction to the US Supreme Court. BACKLASH OVER LIMITED RELEASE Attorney General Pam Bondi has come under fire from Trump supporters after walking back earlier promises to release extensive Epstein-related records, including names and flight logs. After only a partial release, the FBI and DOJ issued a memo stating there was 'no incriminating client list' and no evidence of blackmail tied to Epstein's activities, findings that Trump supporters have rejected. Trump allies have since demanded broader disclosure, with calls for Bondi to resign unless the department reopens the inquiry and grants Maxwell immunity to testify before Congress. In a recent interview with Fox News, attorney Alan Dershowitz, who once represented Epstein, said grand jury transcripts were unlikely to contain the names or documents Trump supporters are seeking. He urged the DOJ instead to release FBI interview reports with victims. Epstein died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial. The official ruling was suicide, but the circumstances of his death have long fueled conspiracy theories, particularly on the American right.
