What you need to know as Harvard and Trump administration in court over funding
The Ivy League institution, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, sued the Trump administration in April for seeking "unprecedented and improper" control of the school, after it froze $2.6bn (£1.9bn) of its federal funding.
Harvard's lawsuit accuses the government of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a list of 10 demands from a federal antisemitism task force, which included sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions.
The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, with the department of justice arguing that funding cuts are a means to protect against antisemitism, after it accused Harvard of ideological bias and violating the rights of its Jewish students when campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza took place last year.
The case is now being heard before US district judge Allison Burroughs, who was appointed by former president Barack Obama.
Both sides have sought a summary judgement, which ends a legal case early without the need of a full trial. But there is no indication on when Judge Burroughs will deliver a verdict.
With the ruling potentially leading to larger implications on how much influence the US government has over schools, here is what you need to know.
Research, careers and labs at stake
During Monday's hearing at Moakley Federal Courthouse, Harvard lawyer Steven Lehotsky asked Judge Burroughs to reverse the series of funding freezes.
He said if the cuts remain in place, it could lead to the loss of research, damage careers and the closing of labs.
"It's not about Harvard's conduct," he said. "It's about the government's conduct toward Harvard."
Already, government agencies have begun to end their contracts with the school, citing a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies.
Sky News' US partner network NBC News reported the cancelled contracts were worth an estimated $100m (£74m).
Despite having a $53bn endowment - a collection of assets, typically built up from donations, that generate income for the school - Harvard has said it cannot absorb the full cost of the cuts. Although, it has begun to self-fund some research.
Donald Trump also separately warned in a post on Truth Social that Harvard could lose its tax exempt status and be "taxed as a political entity".
'The government is pro-Jewish students'
In court, the parties continually went over whether antisemitism on campus justified the removal of federal funding.
Michael Velchik, the lawyer representing the Trump administration, argued Harvard allowed antisemitism to flourish at the university following the 7 October 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, including protesters chanting antisemitic slogans and Jewish students being attacked.
"Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that," Mr Velchik, who is a Harvard graduate, said.
"The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard."
Harvard has said it has made changes to combat antisemitism, but Mr Lehotsky argued that the issue is not relevant to cutting research to do with, for example, Alzheimer's research.
Judge Burroughs also pushed back at Mr Velchik, saying the government had provided "no documentation, no procedure" to "suss out" whether Harvard administrators have or haven't done enough to combat antisemitism.
"The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering," she said. "I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech."
Mr Velchik responded by saying the case comes down to the government choosing how best to spend billions in research funding.
After Monday's hearing, Mr Trump took to Truth Social, calling Judge Burroughs a "total disaster".
Enrolling international students row
The lawsuit over federal funding is separate to a complaint Harvard filed in a Boston federal court in May over the Trump administration's plan to stop the school from enrolling international students.
Judge Burroughs, who is overseeing both cases, issued a temporary restraining order which stops the government from revoking Harvard's certification in the student and exchange visitor programme, which allows the university to host international students with visas to study in the US.
2:17
The government first brought about the plan after accusing Harvard of creating an unsafe campus environment by allowing "anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators" to assault Jewish students on its premises.
It also accused the university of coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), contending the school had hosted and trained members of a Chinese paramilitary group as recently as 2024.
Harvard argued the move violated the First Amendment and would have had an "immediate and devastating effect" on the school and "more than 7,000 visa holders".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Married immigrants trying to get green cards could be deported, new Trump-era guidance says
Immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens have long expected that they won't be deported from the country while going through the process of obtaining a green card. But new guidance from Donald Trump's administration explicitly states that immigrants seeking lawful residence through marriage can be deported, a policy that also applies to immigrants with pending requests. Immigration authorities can begin removal proceedings for immigrants who lack legal status and applied to become a lawful permanent resident through a citizen spouse, according to guidance from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued this month. The policy also applies to immigrants with pending green cards through other citizen family members. People who entered the country illegally aren't the only ones impacted. Under new guidance, immigrants trying to get lawful status through a spouse or family member are at risk of being deported if their visas expired, or if they are among the roughly 1 million immigrants whose temporary protected status was stripped from them under the Trump administration. Immigrants and their spouses or family members who sponsor them 'should be aware that a family-based petition accords no immigration status nor does it bar removal,' the policy states. The changes were designed to 'enhance benefit integrity and identify vetting and fraud concerns' and weed out what the agency calls 'fraudulent, frivolous, or non-meritorious' applications, according to USCIS. 'This guidance will improve USCIS' capacity to vet qualifying marriages and family relationships to ensure they are genuine, verifiable, and compliant with all applicable laws,' the agency said in a statement. Those changes, which were filed on August 1, are 'effective immediately,' according to the agency. Within the first six months of 2025, immigrants and their family members filed more than 500,000 I-130 petitions, which are the first steps in the process of obtaining legal residency through a spouse or family member. There are more than 2.4 million pending I-130 petitions, according to USCIS data. Nearly 2 million of those petitions have been pending for more than six months. It is unclear whether those petitions involve immigrants who either lost their legal status or did not have one at the time they filed their documents. Previously, USCIS would notify applicants about missing documents or issue a denial notice serving as a warning that their case could be rejected — with opportunities for redress. Now, USCIS is signaling that applicants can be immediately denied and ordered to immigrant courts instead. Outside of being born in the country, family-based immigration remains the largest and most viable path to permanent residency, accounting for nearly half of all new green card holders each year, according to USCIS data. 'This is one of the most important avenues that people have to adjust to lawful permanent status in the United States,' Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants' Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, told NBC News. Under long-established USCIS policies, 'no one expected' to be hauled into immigration court while seeking lawful status after a marriage, Mukherjee said. Now, deportation proceedings can begin 'at any point in the process' under the broad scope of the rule changes, which could 'instill fear in immigrant families, even those who are doing everything right,' according to Mukherjee. Obtaining a green card The high-profile arrest and threat of removing Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil put intense scrutiny on whether the administration lawfully targeted a lawful permanent resident for his constitutionally protected speech. And last month, Customs and Border Protection put green card holders on notice, warning that the government 'has the authority to revoke your green card if our laws are broken and abused.' 'In addition to immigration removal proceedings, lawful permanent residents presenting at a U.S. port of entry with previous criminal convictions may be subject to mandatory detention,' the agency said. Another recent USCIS memo outlines the administration's plans to revoke citizenship from children whose parents lack permanent lawful status as well as parents who are legally in the country, including visa holders, DACA recipients and people seeking asylum. The policy appears to preempt court rulings surrounding the constitutionality of the president's executive order that unilaterally redefines who gets to be a citizen in the country at birth. That memo, from the agency's Office of the Chief Counsel, acknowledges that federal court injunctions have blocked the government from taking away birthright citizenship. But the agency 'is preparing to implement' Trump's executive order 'in the event that it is permitted to go into effect,' according to July's memo. Children of immigrants who are 'unlawfully present' will 'no longer be U.S. citizens at birth,' the agency declared. Trump's order states that children whose parents are legally present in the country on student, work and tourist visas are not eligible for citizenship USCIS, however, goes even further, outlining more than a dozen categories of immigrants whose children could lose citizenship at birth despite their parents living in the country with legal permission. That list includes immigrants who are protected against deportation for humanitarian reasons and immigrants from countries with Temporary Protected Status, among others. The 14th Amendment plainly states that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' The Supreme Court has upheld that definition to apply to all children born within the United States for more than a century. But under the terms of Trump's order, children can be denied citizenship if a mother is undocumented or is temporarily legally in the country on a visa, and if the father isn't a citizen or a lawful permanent resident. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship every year under Trump's order, according to plaintiffs challenging the president's order. A challenge over Trump's birthright citizenship order at the Supreme Court did not resolve the critical 14th Amendment questions at stake. On Wednesday, government lawyers confirmed plans to 'expeditiously' ask the Supreme Court 'to settle the lawfulness' of his birthright citizenship order later this year.
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Restoration of torn-down Confederate monument will cost $10 million over 2 years, military says
Restoring a memorial to the Confederacy that was removed from Arlington National Cemetery at the recommendation of Congress will cost roughly $10 million total, a U.S. Army official said Wednesday — the latest development in a Trump administration effort to combat what it calls 'erasing American history.' Once back in the cemetery, the monument — described a few years ago as 'problematic from top to bottom' — will also feature panels nearby that will offer context about its history, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity about a project still in progress. The Pentagon expects it to take about two years to restore the monument to its original site, the official told The Associated Press. The base that it sat on needs to be replaced and the monument itself will be refurbished as well. On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the Pentagon would reinstall the memorial at Arlington — an expanse just outside Washington that once contained the land of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee — less than two years after it was removed on the recommendation of an independent commission. On social media Tuesday, Hegseth said the Arlington statue 'never should have been taken down by woke lemmings. Unlike the Left, we don't believe in erasing American history — we honor it.' It was erected more than a century ago The Confederate monument, erected in 1914, was the creation of sculptor and Confederate veteran Moses Ezekiel. It features a classical female figure, crowned with olive leaves, representing the American South, alongside sanitized depictions of slavery. In 2022, a congressionally mandated commission recommended that the memorial, along with scores of other military assets that bore Confederate references, be either removed or renamed. Retired Army Brig. Gen. Ty Seidule, the vice chair of the commission, said that the group found that Ezekiel's memorial was 'problematic from top to bottom.' Arlington National Cemetery's page on the memorial noted that aside from the sanitized depictions of enslaved people, the statue featured a Latin phrase that equated the South's secession to a noble 'lost cause." That's a false interpretation of the Civil War that glorifies the conflict as a struggle over the power of the federal government and not the institution of slavery. Hegseth has made a point of circumventing the will of the commission several times now by reverting the names of several Army bases back to their original, Confederate-linked names, though by honoring different figures. For example, following the recommendations of the commission, officials renamed Fort Bragg, a name that honored Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg, a slave owner who lost several key Civil War battles, to Fort Liberty. In February, Hegseth reverted the name back to Fort Bragg but honoring Army Pfc. Roland L. Bragg, a World War II soldier who earned a Silver Star and Purple Heart for exceptional courage during the Battle of the Bulge. The effort is part of a larger Trump initiative In March, President Donald Trump issued an executive order entitled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.' It decried efforts to reinterpret American history, stating, 'rather than fostering unity and a deeper understanding of our shared past, the widespread effort to rewrite history deepens societal divides and fosters a sense of national shame.' The order targeted the Smithsonian network of museums as having 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology.' It also instructed the Interior Department to restore any statue or display that was 'removed or changed to perpetuate a false reconstruction of American history, inappropriately minimize the value of certain historical events or figures, or include any other improper partisan ideology.' This has been an active week when it comes to the dispute over how American history and culture are portrayed. On Monday, the National Park Service announced that the statue of Albert Pike, a Confederate brigadier general and a revered figure among Freemasons, would resume its previous position in Washington's Judiciary Square, a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol. It was the only outdoor statue of a Confederate military leader in the nation's capital. And late last week, the Smithsonian Museum of American History announced that it would revert an exhibit on the presidency to the 2008 era, eliminating any mention of the two Trump impeachments. After that move sparked discussion about how history is portrayed by government-backed institutions, the Smithsonian said it had come under no pressure from the White House and had been planning all along to update that part of the exhibit, which it said was temporary, to 2025 specifications.
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
After deep DOGE cuts, National Weather Service gets OK to fill up to 450 jobs
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will hire as many as 450 people to shore up the National Weather Service after deep cuts this spring raised concern about dangerous understaffing, the Trump administration confirmed Wednesday. NOAA was granted permission to fill critical positions at its weather arm, including openings for meteorologists, hydrologists and electronics technicians, Trump administration officials said. The hirings are part of an exemption to a freeze on federal hiring in place through at least Oct. 15. NOAA declined to comment further. The planned hiring was first reported by CNN. The Department of Government Efficiency has gutted NOAA and the National Weather Service, which are key for the nation's daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings, climate monitoring and more. Hundreds of NOAA forecasters and other employees have been cut, and NWS offices around the country have had a number of vacancies. The administration has also weighed ending the sharing of satellite data that is key to effective storm tracking and stopped tracking the cost of climate change-fueled weather disasters. Meteorologists and climate scientists have warned of consequences with fewer workers in positions that are crucial, especially as the hurricane season got underway. After deadly flash flooding that killed dozens of people in Texas last month, some local officials and Democrats suggested that the deep staffing cuts may have contributed to endangering lives, though others defended the agency's work. Experts cautiously applauded the exemption for hirings as positive news. 'While this new development is great news for the NWS and the American public, I would like to see that the hiring actions are actually underway,' said Louis Uccellini, former NOAA administrator for weather services and NWS director. The hirings are said to include the 'mission-critical field positions' that the agency announced it would hire for in June 'to further stabilize front line operations." The agency did not say at the time how many roles would be filled. ___ Alexa St. John is an Associated Press climate reporter. Follow her on X: @alexa_stjohn. Reach her at ___ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
