
Harvard heads to court to argue Trump administration's $2.6bn in cuts were illegal
If US district Judge Allison Burroughs decides in the university's favor, the ruling would reverse a series of funding freezes that later became outright cuts as the Trump administration escalated its fight with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. Such a ruling, if it stands, 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.'
A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's.
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 task force.
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.
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.
The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status.
Finally, 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'.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
19 minutes ago
- Reuters
BlackRock, other fund managers lose bid to dismiss Texas climate collusion lawsuit
Aug 1 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Friday largely rejected a request by top asset managers including BlackRock (BLK.N), opens new tab to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Texas and 12 other Republican-led states that said the companies violated antitrust law through climate activism that reduced coal production and boosted energy prices. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle in Tyler, Texas agreed to dismiss just three of the 21 counts in the states' lawsuit, which also names institutional investors State Street (STT.N), opens new tab and Vanguard. The lawsuit is among the highest-profile cases targeting efforts to promote environmental, social and governance goals. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the three companies "created an investment cartel to illegally control national energy markets and squeeze more money out of hardworking Americans,' and that 'today's victory represents a major step in holding them accountable." The three asset managers said they would continue to defend against the claims, with Vanguard calling the ruling disappointing, and State Street calling the case a risk to investors and energy markets. "By pursuing forced divestment, the Attorneys General are undermining the Trump Administration's goal of American energy independence," BlackRock said. The ruling by Kernodle, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, means the states can move forward with their claims that the asset managers violated U.S. antitrust law by joining Climate Action 100+, an investor initiative to take action to combat climate change, and used their shareholder advocacy in furtherance of its goals. Kernodle, however, dismissed claims that the asset managers violated Louisiana and Nebraska consumer protection laws. The companies have denied wrongdoing and called the case "half-baked." But the states' theories have garnered support from Trump-appointed antitrust enforcers at the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. The outcome of the lawsuit could have major implications for how the companies, which together manage some $27 trillion, approach their holdings and passive funds. One possible remedy sought by the plaintiffs would be for the fund firms to divest holdings in coal companies, which BlackRock has said would harm the companies' access to capital and likely raise energy prices.


Daily Mail
21 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump demands firing of senior official after jobs numbers report
Donald Trump demanded the firing of a top Joe Biden official overseeing the country's 'jobs numbers' after a lackluster report. The president is taking out his frustration on Dr. Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of labor statistics, who was appointed to the role by Biden. He accused her of 'faking' jobs numbers before the 2024 election to 'try and boost Kamala's chances of victory,' in a blistering post to Truth Social. 'We need accurate jobs numbers. I have directed my team to fire this Biden political appointee, IMMEDIATELY. She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified,' he stated. Hiring growth dropped dramatically last month and unemployment ticked up, the latest jobs report released on Friday showed. Nonfarm payrolls added 73,000 in July, far lower than the 100,000 expected by analysts. The unemployment rate also ticked up to 4.2 percent. The report also sharply revised down the figures for May and June by a combined 258,000 jobs from the previously released figures. Following the revision June's total was left at just 14,000 and May's at 19,000 — effectively flat. Analysts say July's figure is also likely to be revised lower, possibly into negative territory. Stocks tumbled in pre-market trading with the S&P 500 down around one percent, and the Nasdaq down around 1.1 percent before the bell. The latest figures suggest cracks are in fact starting to show up in the economy, despite a slew of previous better-than-expected economic data released recently. It comes after the Federal Reserve once again held rates steady at its July meeting on Wednesday.


Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
Democrats decry extra US scrutiny of solar, wind projects on public lands
WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - Four Democratic U.S. senators on Friday slammed last month's directive by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum requiring his office to review decisions on every wind and solar power project on federal lands, saying it will lead to delays and discourage private investment as power demand rises. The lawmakers said the directive creates a bottleneck that will block progress on wind and solar energy, which accounted for the vast majority of new U.S. power generation added to the grid last year. "Rather than ensuring an efficient permitting process for all energy resources, it appears this directive actively disfavors renewable projects in favor of more expensive, and more polluting, technologies" such as fossil fuels, said the letter to Burgum from Senators Martin Heinrich, Ron Wyden and two others. They urged Burgum to rescind the directive and restore a transparent and timely permitting framework for renewable energy. The Interior Department did not comment on the letter. But a spokesperson said the "enhanced oversight will ensure all evaluations are thorough and deliberative." President Donald Trump has called wind and solar unreliable and expensive, and has pushed policies to boost U.S. production of oil, gas and coal. Heinrich, ranking Democrat on the Senate energy committee, represents New Mexico, which has bountiful oil, gas, wind and solar resources. Interior has said the reviews would apply to rights-of-way, leases, construction and other permitting activities. Trump has ordered several measures aimed at restricting wind and solar. His spending law accelerated by several years the phase-out of tax credits for the renewable power sources. Solar and wind companies have said Interior's directive was at odds with Trump's broader goal to slash burdensome regulations and boost energy for new data centers and artificial intelligence, which are hiking U.S. power demand for the first time in two decades. Former President Joe Biden's Interior Department had been reviewing more than 65 utility-scale onshore clean energy projects, with nearly 200 more in the queue, the senators said.