Harvard argues in court that Trump administration's $2.6bn cuts are illegal

The Guardian

7 days ago

Harvard University appeared in federal court on Monday to make the case that the Trump administration illegally cut $2.6bn from the storied college – a major test of the administration's efforts to reshape higher education institutions by threatening their financial viability.
US district judge Allison Burroughs heard arguments from Harvard and the Department of Justice. The cuts, imposed earlier this year, have halted major research efforts and Harvard argues they are a politically motivated attempt to pressure the school into adopting federal policies on student conduct, admissions, antisemitism and diversity.
A ruling in favor of the university would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money.
'This case involves the government's efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking at Harvard,' the university said in its complaint. 'All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: allow the government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution's ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions.'
The case is being closely watched by other universities that have seen their research funds axed by the administration, which has suspended or threatened billions in grants and contracts from several institutions. The White House is reportedly close to finalizing a deal with Columbia University – the first institution it targeted for cuts – to restore $400m in funding in exchange for the university implementing a series of measures meeting the administration's ideological demands.
Harvard is the first – and so far only – university to sue.
The university has separately sued the administration over its revocation of Harvard's eligibility to host international students. (Trump has also threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status, but he has taken no action to that effect so far.)
Burroughs is overseeing both of Harvard's cases against the administration and in June issued an injunction stopping the government from barring foreign Harvard students from entering the country.
Monday's hearing was the first time the court heard arguments about the legality of the administration's funding cuts. The hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing.
Harvard's lawsuit accuses Donald Trump's administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an 11 April letter from a federal antisemitism taskforce.
The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. The letter was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus.
A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said in court on Monday that the government has authority to cancel research grants when an institution is out of compliance with the president's directives. He said episodes at Harvard violated Trump's order combating antisemitism.
Burroughs pushed back, questioning how the government could make 'ad-hoc' decisions to cancel grants and do so across Harvard without offering evidence that any of the research is antisemitic.
She also argued the government had provided 'no documentation, no procedure' to 'suss out' whether Harvard administrators 'have taken enough steps or haven't' to combat antisemitism.
'The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' Burroughs said during Monday's hearing. 'I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong.'
Velchik said the case comes down to the government's choosing how best to spend billions of dollars in research funding.
'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' Velchik said. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.'
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
Alan Garber, Harvard's president, pledged to fight antisemitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue'.
The same day Harvard rejected the demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2bn in research grants. Linda McMahon, the US education secretary, declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard.
As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing that the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies.
Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53bn, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts.
In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism'.
The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons.
'It is the policy of the United States under the Trump administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,' it said in court documents.
Last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism – a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence'.
While Harvard's cases against the administration proceeds in court, the university is reportedly also negotiating with the administration for a deal that might end the dispute out of court.