What's really behind Harvard's clash with the US government over federal funds?
Harvard University is currently embroiled in a legal battle with the US government over the freezing of nearly $3 billion in federal funding. The dispute centers on allegations made by the Trump administration and the University's response through a federal lawsuit.
The courtroom hearing, taking place in Boston's Seaport District, represents a key moment in the case. The proceedings involve oral arguments over whether Harvard can recover federal research funds that were withheld following the administration's imposition of specific conditions tied to hiring, admissions, and oversight.
Background of the lawsuit and key issues at stake
The legal conflict began in April when the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard President Alan M.
Garber outlining conditions for continued federal support. These included structural reforms to increase 'viewpoint diversity' and audits of various academic units, as reported by The Harvard Crimson. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit arguing that the administration's demands violated the First Amendment and bypassed formal legal procedures for terminating federal funding.
Following the University's legal challenge, the administration halted more than $2 billion in federal grants.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
What Happens When You Massage Baking Soda Into Your Scalp
Lintmit.com
Read More
Undo
According to The Harvard Crimson, the government escalated further by adding hundreds of millions in additional cuts and warning that Harvard would no longer receive future grants.
Federal agencies involved and legal grounds cited
Eleven federal agencies are named as defendants, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense. Harvard argues that the Trump administration's funding freeze violated the First Amendment by attaching viewpoint-based conditions to funding.
The University also cited the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, stating that the government failed to follow the necessary steps before terminating grants.
Title VI typically requires a hearing, two formal notices, a 30-day pause, and a failed attempt at voluntary compliance. Harvard contends that none of these steps were followed before the April funding freeze.
Key Information
Details
Amount frozen
Over $2.2 billion
Total funds at stake
Nearly $3 billion
Agencies involved
11 (including NSF, DOD, HHS)
Legal claims
First Amendment, APA, Title VI
Judge
Allison D. Burroughs
Court location
Boston, Massachusetts
Allegations of antisemitism and racial bias
According to the Trump administration, the cuts were prompted by Harvard's alleged failure to adequately address antisemitism and racial discrimination against white students.
As reported by The Harvard Crimson, several federal agencies referenced findings from a task force on antisemitism, which described incidents of social isolation and discrimination faced by Jewish and Israeli students.
Harvard, however, maintains that it has implemented significant measures, including the formalization of protest policies and expanded academic programs on Jewish and Israeli history. In a court filing cited by The Harvard Crimson, the University said the 2,000-page administrative record submitted by the government failed to show a proper investigation into antisemitism on campus.
Ongoing impact and future implications
The funding cuts have already disrupted research at Harvard, halting projects in cancer and rare disease treatment and prompting layoffs and hiring freezes. According to The Harvard Crimson, the University requested a summary judgment in early June to resolve the case before the federal government's September 3 deadline for fulfilling financial obligations related to canceled grants.
The Trump administration has argued that the case belongs in the Court of Federal Claims, which could delay a final ruling. Meanwhile, discussions between Harvard and the White House have not resulted in a settlement.
Judge Allison D. Burroughs is presiding over the case. Though a final ruling is not expected immediately, the court's decision will have significant implications for the University and federal oversight of higher education.
TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us
here
.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
15 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trump envoy's visit will be 'important', Moscow says
Synopsis Amidst escalating tensions, Donald Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, is slated for crucial talks in Moscow as a deadline looms for Russia to de-escalate the Ukraine conflict or face new sanctions. Trump has deployed nuclear submarines to the region, prompting caution from Russia, while Ukraine intensifies drone attacks, including one on Sochi, signaling a worsening conflict despite ongoing prisoner exchange talks. ANI US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff The Kremlin said Monday it was anticipating "important" talks with Donald Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, later this week, ahead of the US president's looming deadline to impose fresh sanctions on Moscow if it does not make progress towards a peace deal with confirmed Sunday that special envoy Steve Witkoff will visit Russia, likely on "Wednesday or Thursday", where he is expected to meet President Vladimir to reporters, Trump also said that two nuclear submarines he deployed following an online row with former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev were now "in the region".Trump has not said whether he meant nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarines. He also did not elaborate on the exact deployment locations, which are kept secret by the US in its first comments on the deployment, urged "caution". The nuclear saber-rattling came against the backdrop of a deadline set by Trump at the end of next week for Russia to take steps towards ending the Ukraine war or face unspecified new Republican leader said Witkoff would visit "I think next week, Wednesday or Thursday".Russian President Vladimir Putin has already met Witkoff multiple times in Moscow, before Trump's efforts to mend ties with the Kremlin came to a grinding reporters asked what Witkoff's message would be to Moscow, and if there was anything Russia could do to avoid the sanctions, Trump replied: "Yeah, get a deal where people stop getting killed."The Kremlin said another meeting with Putin was possible and that it considered talks with Witkoff to be "important, substantial and helpful".On the submarines, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: "Russia is very attentive to the topic of nuclear non-proliferation. And we believe that everyone should be very, very cautious with nuclear rhetoric."- 'Secondary tariffs' -Trump has previously threatened that new measures could mean "secondary tariffs" targeting Russia's remaining trade partners, such as China and India. This would further stifle Russia, but would risk significant international the pressure from Washington, Russia has continued its onslaught against its pro-Western who has consistently rejected calls for a ceasefire, said Friday that he wants peace but that his demands for ending his nearly three-and-a-half-year invasion were "unchanged"."We need a lasting and stable peace on solid foundations that would satisfy both Russia and Ukraine, and would ensure the security of both countries," Putin told reporters. But he added that "the conditions (from the Russian side) certainly remain the same".Russia has frequently called on Ukraine to effectively cede control of four regions Moscow claims to have annexed, a demand Kyiv has called also wants Ukraine to drop its ambitions to join launched a drone attack Sunday which sparked a fire at an oil depot in Sochi, the host city of the 2014 Winter Olympics. Kyiv has said it will intensify its air strikes against Russia in response to an increase in Russian attacks on its territory in recent weeks, which have killed dozens of Ministry of Defence said on Monday its air defences intercepted 61 Ukrainian drones overnight. One person was killed by Russian shelling in the southern Kherson region, Ukrainian military authorities said in a Telegram post early President Volodymyr Zelensky also said Sunday that the two sides were preparing a prisoner exchange that would see 1,200 Ukrainian troops return home, following talks with Russia in Istanbul in began his second term with his own rosy predictions that the war in Ukraine -- raging since Russia invaded its neighbor in February 2022 -- would soon recent weeks, Trump has increasingly voiced frustration with Putin over Moscow's unrelenting offensive.
NDTV
26 minutes ago
- NDTV
"India Left With No Friends": Farooq Abdullah On US Imposing 25% Tariffs
Srinagar: After US President Donald Trump announced 25 percent tariffs on India, former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister and National Conference (NC) chief Farooq Abdullah on Monday expressed concerns over India being left with "no friends", claiming that Trump has grown closer to Pakistan. He said that India has tried to show that it is stronger than its neighbouring countries instead of reflecting that these nations ought to be together to deal with issues of an economic nature. "We have no friends left, even our neighbours are not our friends. What we have tried to do is to show that we are stronger than they are, rather than thinking that all of us have to be together. That's why Indira Gandhi created SAARC, which aimed to bring all nations closer to us. It was meant to think about the economic issues and how to sort them out," Mr Abdullah told ANI. "Suddenly, Trump has become much more friendly with Pakistan. They want us not to take Russian oil. Yet they have promised Pakistan they will send crude (oil) to them and refine it, leading to their prices of petrol and diesel to come down. Already, China is behind them," he added. Mr Abdullah said that the nation suffers due to the problem between Trump and PM Narendra Modi. He added that the 25 per cent tariffs imposed on India were causing the value of the rupee to fall, which is affecting everyone. "It is a problem between the two leaders - Trump and Modi. They are both strong leaders, and that is why they don't want to bow down to each other. The nation suffers in that. We have a 25 per cent tariff on our goods going to America, plus an additional penalty. In the process, the rupee is falling and the dollar is rising. This is affecting everyone," Mr Abdullah argued. Trump had earlier said that Washington is continuing trade negotiations with India. Asked if the US remains open to negotiating with India on the tariff front, Trump stated, "We're talking to them now. We'll see what happens. Again, India was the highest or just about the highest tariff nation in the world, one of the highest, 100 points, 150 points or percentages. So India was one of the highest in the world. They had 175 per cent and higher than that." After announcing a 25 per cent tariff and penalties for purchasing Russian oil, he emphasised that India is one of the countries imposing high tariffs on the US. He made the comments during a press conference at the White House, held to mark the signing of a Congressional bill. Earlier, Trump made a shocking statement on his social media platform Truth Social after the announcement of 25 per cent tariffs against India and threatened an additional "penalty" for importing Russian oil. "I don't care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care. We have done very little business with India; their tariffs are too high, among the highest in the world." Trump said.
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
What Harvard's $500 million rejection means for the future of higher education in the US
Harvard's $500 million settlement rejection could make a huge change in the American education system. In a dramatic standoff with the Trump administration, Harvard University has rejected a $500 million federal settlement offer, choosing legal resistance over compliance. The move is more than a high-profile rebuke; it's a watershed moment for the future of higher education in the United States, with ripple effects likely to touch every major university, student, and research institution across the country. A clash over more than funding The proposed deal wasn't just financial support. It came with strings attached: compliance with political directives involving diversity initiatives, admissions policies, and increased federal oversight. Many institutions, facing immense pressure, accepted similar deals. But Harvard took a different path, insisting that academic freedom and institutional autonomy are not up for negotiation. By turning down the $500 million offer, Harvard is betting on the courts and public opinion to defend its values. The university has already secured preliminary injunctions allowing limited research funding to resume, but the long-term outcome remains uncertain. Why Harvard's stand matters Harvard's decision sets a precedent that could shape how other institutions respond to political pressure in the years to come. 1. Strengthening legal resistance Rather than settling, Harvard has chosen to fight. This legal path could establish protections for universities that resist government overreach tied to federal grants. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Use an AI Writing Tool That Actually Understands Your Voice Grammarly Install Now Undo If the courts uphold Harvard's stance, it could insulate campuses from future political interference. 2. Sending a message to peers Other top universities that accepted settlements are now under scrutiny. Harvard's high-profile defiance may embolden students, faculty, and trustees across the country to resist similar pressures and challenge deals they see as compromising academic integrity. 3. Reframing public debate Harvard has turned a behind-closed-doors negotiation into a public battle over the soul of higher education. The resulting media coverage, campus protests, and political commentary have reignited national conversations about who controls America's universities—and at what cost. The cost of defiance Choosing principle over funding has immediate consequences. Research projects remain stalled, hiring freezes are in place, and international students face visa uncertainty. Some faculty have warned of long-term damage to academic competitiveness if the standoff continues. Moreover, universities nationwide are feeling the aftershocks. Fearing similar action, many are reviewing their diversity and admissions programs, even in the absence of direct federal threats. Broader implications for students and scholars Harvard's decision affects more than just elite academia. It could redefine how students, both domestic and international, experience US education. For international students, the case raises concerns about the stability of visa pathways and the political conditions tied to enrolment. For American students, it calls into question how much autonomy their institutions will have in shaping educational content, campus policies, and student life. A turning point for academic freedom At its core, Harvard's refusal to settle is a stand for the principle that universities should be governed by academic leaders and not shaped by political directives from Washington. Whether that principle holds will depend on the outcome of court battles and continued public scrutiny. But regardless of the legal result, this moment marks a turning point. It's a reminder that higher education is not just about degrees and research—it's about values, governance, and the future of democratic institutions. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
