
Hearing begins in Harvard's case against the Trump administration
A lawyer for Harvard, Steven Lehotsky, said at Monday's hearing that the case is about the government trying to control the 'inner workings' of Harvard. The funding cuts, if not reversed, could lead to the loss of research, damaged careers and the closing of labs, he said.
President Donald Trump's administration has battered the nation's oldest and wealthiest university with sanctions for months as it presses a series of demands on the Ivy League school, which it decries as a hotbed of liberalism and anti-Semitism.
Harvard has resisted, and the lawsuit over the cuts to its research grants represents the primary challenge to the administration in a standoff that is being widely watched across higher education and beyond.
The case is before US District Judge Allison Burroughs, who is presiding over lawsuits brought by Harvard against the administration's efforts to keep it from hosting international students. In that case, she temporarily blocked the administration's efforts.
At Monday's hearing, Harvard is asking her to reverse a series of funding freezes. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money.
A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said the government has the 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 anti-Semitism.
Judge questions basis for government's findings on anti-Semitism
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 anti-Semitic.
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 anti-Semitism.
'The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' she 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.'
Harvard's lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal anti-Semitism task force. 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.
The April 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.
Harvard President Alan Garber has said the university has made changes to combat anti-Semitism 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'.
Monday's hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing.
Trump's pressure campaign has involved a series of sanctions
The same day Harvard rejected the government's demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2bn in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later, the administration began cancelling contracts with Harvard.
As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing 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.
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 anti-Semitism – a step that eventually could jeopardise 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


Al Jazeera
10 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Fact check: Did US go from ice cream trade surplus to deficit under Biden?
President Donald Trump's administration dished out a cold burn to Trump's ice-cream-loving predecessor, Joe Biden, saying he led the US ice cream industry down an economic rocky road. 'America had a trade surplus in ice cream in 2020 under President Trump's leadership, but that surplus turned into a trade deficit of $40.6 million under President Biden's watch,' the Office of the US Trade Representative wrote July 20 on X. The post included a chart that shows the US ice cream trade deficit with Japan, South Africa, the European Union, Brazil, Canada and Turkiye. The US ice cream trade balance did change dramatically in 2021, the year Biden took office. The trade balance officially flipped negative – which means imports outnumber exports – in 2022 and has remained so since then. But industry experts caution that US ice cream imports account for a minuscule fraction of all the US ice cream consumed in the US, and exports account for a tiny fraction of all US ice cream produced. The trade change was driven mostly by a jump in imports. Exports have remained largely unchanged since 2020. And the cherry on top? Disagreement over which products to classify as 'ice cream' also affects data, experts say. For example, the data referenced by the office of the US Trade Representative also includes 'edible ice', which some experts (and dairy defenders) say doesn't qualify as ice cream. Removing edible ice shows that 'the US is a net exporter by a significant margin of ($193 million) or +85% larger by value,' International Dairy Foods Association Executive Vice President Matt Herrick told PolitiFact via email. Ice cream imports increase causes US trade deficit From 1995 to 2020, the US had an ice cream trade surplus, ranging from about $20m to about $160m, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity, an online economic data platform. Longtime customers include Mexico, followed by Saudi Arabia and Canada. In 2021, that surplus nearly vanished, and in 2022 and 2023, the US notched up an ice cream trade deficit of $92m and $33m, respectively. At first glance, importing frozen foods doesn't seem practical. 'Shipping refrigerated and frozen products overseas is expensive,' dairy economist Betty Berningat of HighGround Dairy said. 'Mexico is the top destination for US dairy exports.' But many US and European companies have tapped into global markets. 'Consumers may also want a specific treat that is styled after or known to be from another country,' Herrick said. Italy, the birthplace of gelato, is now the United States' largest single source of imported ice cream. Italian ice cream imports more than quintupled from about $12m to almost $65m between 2020 and 2021 alone, before decreasing somewhat in 2023, the last year for which data is available. Some of this stems from increased consumer demand for specialty pints. A report by Mordor Intelligence, a global market research firm, said 'product innovation and premiumisation' have become key in the US ice cream industry. 'This trend is particularly evident in the growth of premium pint offerings and individually wrapped novelties that cater to both indulgence and portion control preferences,' the report said. The US produces far more ice cream than it imports or exports To get to the pint: The vast majority of ice cream consumed in the United States is made there, not overseas. The Trump administration is cherry-picking stats from a fraction of a sliver of the US ice cream industry. According to US Agriculture Department data, US ice cream makers churned out 1.31 billion gallons of ice cream in 2024. This includes regular ice cream, low-fat and nonfat ice cream, sherbet and frozen yoghurt. By comparison, the US imported 2.35 million gallons of traditional ice cream in 2024 – that's 0.18 percent of the amount produced domestically, Herrick said. The US exported 16.4 million gallons of that domestic production, which is also a tiny fraction of 1.31 billion gallons of ice cream – a little more than 1 percent. Factoring in ice cream mixes, excluding 'edible ice' products Another caveat about the international trade data: It does not include 'mixes', which skews the totals, said Herrick of the International Dairy Foods Association. Mixes are used to make ice cream shakes and soft-serve products, and they account for a significant portion of US ice cream exports. 'Inclusion of such data points would change the picture quite significantly,' said Herrick. 'While it is true that traditional ice cream and edible ice exports have seen decreased exports, the same cannot be said for exports of mixes.' US milk-based drink exports increased 621 percent over the past five years, he said. In 2024, the US exported nearly $35m in mixes to the European Union. Americans and dairy-based ice cream: A centuries-old love affair melting away? The White House has churned out plenty of ice cream devotees. George Washington stocked the capital with ice cream-making equipment. Thomas Jefferson is credited as being the first American to record an ice cream recipe. Ronald Reagan declared July National Ice Cream Month in 1984. Barack Obama even slung scoops back in the day. Biden, who was often sighted with a cone in hand, proclaimed while visiting Jeni's Splendid Ice Cream headquarters in 2016: 'My name is Joe Biden, and I love ice cream.' But consumption of regular dairy ice cream – a category that does not include frozen yoghurt, sherbet or nonfat and low-fat ice creams – has been trending down for years. In 1975, Americans ate an average of 18.2 pounds each of ice cream per year. That figure fell to 11.7 pounds by 2023. Our ruling The office of the US Trade Representative purported a summertime scoop: 'America had a trade surplus in ice cream in 2020 under President Trump's leadership, but that surplus turned into a trade deficit of $40.6 million under President Biden's watch.' It's accurate that the US ice cream trade balance had a surplus for a quarter of a century before turning negative while Biden was president. But the US Trade Representative's statement makes the US ice cream deficit appear out of cone-trol. There are three scoops of context on this trade sundae: The change was driven mostly by a jump in imports. Exports have remained largely unchanged since 2020. US ice cream imports and exports are a negligible amount compared to domestic production. There's also disagreement over which products should or shouldn't be included in the data set, which can skew trend interpretations. Excluding edible ice products and factoring in ice cream mixes leaves the US with a surplus. The statement is accurate but needs a sprinkling of clarification and additional details, so we rate it Mostly True. Louis Jacobson contributed to this report.


Al Jazeera
18 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
France's move to recognise Palestinian state condemned by US, Israel
United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Washington 'strongly rejects' French President Emmanuel Macron's plan to recognise a Palestinian state, as the administration of President Donald Trump announced it would not attend an upcoming United Nations conference seeking a two-state solution for Palestinians. Posting on X late on Thursday, Rubio criticised Macron's 'reckless decision', which he said 'only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace'. Earlier, Macron had said he would formalise France's decision to officially recognise a Palestinian state at the UN's General Assembly in September. 'In keeping with its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognise the State of Palestine,' Macron wrote on X. At least 142 countries out of the 193 members of the UN currently recognise or plan to recognise a Palestinian state. But several powerful Western countries – including the US, the United Kingdom and Germany – have refused to do so. Fellow European Union members Norway, Ireland and Spain indicated in May that they had begun the process to recognise a Palestinian state. But Macron's decision would make France – one of Israel's closest allies and a G7 member – the largest and arguably most influential country in Europe to make the move. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the decision, saying such a move 'rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy'. 'A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel – not to live in peace beside it,' he said in a post on X. 'Let's be clear: the Palestinians do not seek a state alongside Israel; they seek a state instead of Israel,' Netanyahu added. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz also described the move as 'a disgrace and a surrender to terrorism'. He added that Israel would not allow the establishment of a 'Palestinian entity that would harm our security, endanger our existence'. While supporting a two-state solution remains the long-held official stance of the US, President Donald Trump has himself expressed doubts about its viability. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump suggested the US could 'take over' Gaza, displace the territory's more than two million Palestinian population, and transform it into the 'Riviera of the Middle East'. Trump's plan has been condemned by rights groups, Arab states, Palestinians and the UN as tantamount to 'ethnic cleansing'. In June, Washington's ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, also said he did not think an independent Palestinian state remained a US foreign policy goal. His comments prompted Department of State spokesperson Tammy Bruce to say Huckabee 'speaks for himself' and policy-making is a matter for Trump and the White House. On Thursday, State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott said the US will not attend an upcoming conference set to be held at the UN on the two-state solution. The conference – co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, and scheduled to take place between July 28-30 – seeks to chart a roadmap to end the decades-long conflict and recognise a Palestinian state. Speaking to reporters, Pigott said there was 'nothing further' to say about the issue other than that Washington 'will not be in attendance'. There is mounting pressure on Israel to end its deadly war on Gaza, waged in the wake of the Hamas-led October 7, 2023, attacks on southern Israel, which saw some 1,139 people killed and more than 200 captives taken to the Palestinian enclave. Israel's subsequent 21-month assault on Gaza has resulted in almost 60,000 Palestinians being killed, with a further 144,000 wounded. Months-long ceasefire negotiations – brokered by the US, Egypt and Qatar – have so far failed to yield a breakthrough. On Monday, 28 countries – including the UK, Japan and numerous European nations – issued a joint statement telling Israel the war on Gaza 'must end now'. The joint statement also condemned 'the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food'.


Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
Deported Venezuelan man files abuse complaint against the US government
A Venezuelan man deported from the United States has issued a complaint against the administration of President Donald Trump, saying he was wrongfully sent to a Salvadoran prison where he suffered beatings and other forms of abuse. Thursday's complaint is the first of its kind from one of the more than 250 Venezuelan men sent in March to the Terrorism Confinement Centre (CECOT), a maximum-security prison in El Salvador known for human rights abuses. In filing a complaint against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 27-year-old barber Neiyerver Adrian Leon Rengel has taken a first step towards suing the Trump administration. He and his lawyers from the Democracy Defenders Fund are seeking $1.3m in damages for alleged abuse. Rengel claims the Trump administration falsely accused him of being a gang member in order to circumvent his right to due process and swiftly deport him. 'For more than four months, Rengel languished in El Salvador – which is not his country of origin and a place where he has no ties – where he suffered physical, verbal and psychological abuse,' the complaint said. President Trump campaigned for a second term on the promise that he would implement a policy of mass deportation, and in March, the Republican leader invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to justify the rapid expulsions of alleged gang members. That law, however, had been invoked only three times prior in US history – and only during times of war. Critics accused Trump of overstepping his constitutional authority by leveraging the law to advance his domestic platform, while trampling on the rights of immigrants. Trump, however, argued that the law was necessary to stem what he described as an 'invasion' of criminals into the US. Rengel was arrested on March 13 as part of that deportation sweep under the Alien Enemies Act. According to his complaint, immigration agents nabbed him in the car park outside his apartment in Irving, Texas, and accused him of being a member of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua based on his tattoos. Rengel was in the process of seeking legal status. He had entered the US in June 2023 after successfully receiving an appointment through the CBP One app, which was, at the time, the official portal for asylum claims and other immigration processing at the US-Mexico border. He had an appointment before an immigration judge scheduled for 2028. But according to his complaint, his life was upended when he was arrested and sent to an immigration detention facility. There, he said, members of the DHS falsely indicated he would be returned to his native Venezuela. Instead, he was placed on a deportation flight to El Salvador. Cameras filmed the 250-plus Venezuelan men being disembarked and bussed to the CECOT prison, where their heads were shaved and they were forced to march, handcuffed and heads bowed, into cells. The facility is designed to hold up to 40,000 people. The Trump administration reportedly paid nearly $6m to El Salvador to imprison the deported men. Once inside the CECOT prison, Rengel alleges that he was struck with beaten – sometimes with batons, sometimes with bare fists – including at least one occasion where he was moved to an area where the prison had no cameras. Earlier this month, Rengel was part of a prisoner exchange that saw all of the deported Venezuelan men released from CECOT and sent back to their home country, in exchange for the freedom of alleged political detainees and 10 Americans imprisoned in Venezuela. Rengel has since remained with his mother, 'terrified' of the prospect of returning to the US, according to his lawyers. His complaint was made in compliance with the Federal Tort Claims Act, which sets a pathway for lawsuits against the federal government. It gives the government a maximum of six months to respond to the allegations before a suit can be filed. Already, the Trump administration released a statement signalling it plans to fight Rengel's claims. It doubled down on its accusation that Rengel was a gang member. 'President Trump and [DHS] Secretary [Kristi] Noem will not allow foreign terrorist enemies to operate in our country and endanger Americans,' the Department of Homeland Security told The Associated Press news agency. 'We hear far too much about gang members and criminals' false sob stories and not enough about their victims.' The Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations has been the subject of numerous legal challenges. US District Court Judge James Boasberg had ordered the deportation flights in March to return to the US and has since indicated that the Trump administration may be in contempt of court for failing to do so. In June, Boasberg further ruled that the deported Venezuelan men must be given the opportunity to challenge their removals in US courts. His decision indicated that there was 'significant evidence' that many of the men were languishing 'in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations'.