
Harvard Slams Trump Administration Funding Cuts in Pivotal Court Hearing
A federal judge heard arguments from a team of attorneys for Harvard University and its chapter of the American Association of University Professors and from a lawyer for the federal government, peppering them with questions as Harvard cast its arguments as a First Amendment case and the government sought to frame it as simply a dispute over money and contracts.
The hearing marked a pivotal moment in the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration in an unprecedented case that is being watched by all of higher education.
Harvard has challenged the administration's move to slash billions of dollars in federal funding with critical scientific research and the autonomy of the nearly 400-year-old university on the line. The administration's lawyer said the government froze the funding because the school had not done enough to combat antisemitism.
Both sides had asked the judge to issue a ruling in the case without a trial, but U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ended the hearing without rendering a decision. Burroughs acknowledged that both sides want a rapid resolution; Harvard, in particular, has pleaded urgency in hopes that the funding terminations will not become final.
Steven P. Lehotsky, who argued for Harvard, called the government's actions a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment, touching a 'constitutional third rail' that threatened the academic freedom of private universities.
The lone attorney for the government cast the case as a fight over billions of dollars. 'Harvard is here because it wants the money,' said Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer. But the government can choke the flow of taxpayer dollars to institutions that show a 'deliberate indifference to antisemitism,' he said.
President Donald Trump reacted to the hearing Monday afternoon with a post on social media about the judge. 'She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling.' He called Harvard 'anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America.'
'How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN. Also, the Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard,' he said.
Spokespeople for Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday about the president's remarks.
Peter McDonough, vice president and general counsel at the American Council on Education, said all of higher education could be impacted by the case. 'And I don't think it is too dramatic to say that Americans and the constitutional protections that they value are in court,' he said.
'Freedom of speech is on trial, due process is on trial,' he said, with the executive branch of the government essentially charged with having violated those rights.
The administration has engaged in intense efforts to force changes in higher education, which it has said has been captured by leftist ideology and has not done enough to combat antisemitism in the wake of protests at some colleges over the Israel-Gaza war.
Its biggest target has been Harvard.
The administration announced earlier this year that it would review nearly $9 billion in federal funding to the school and its affiliates, including local hospitals whose physicians teach at Harvard Medical School. In April, a letter from a federal antisemitism task force, alluding to civil rights law, demanded that the university upend its governance, hiring, student discipline and admissions, and submit to years-long federal oversight over multiple aspects of its operations.
Harvard refused to comply.
Hours later, the administration announced it would freeze more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard. It has also launched multiple investigations into the Ivy League institution's operations, threatened to revoke the school's tax-exempt status, and moved to block its ability to enroll international students.
Harvard filed a lawsuit challenging the funding cuts, and later filed another to counter the administration's effort to block international students and scholars from Harvard. In the latter case, Burroughs twice ruled swiftly in Harvard's favor, allowing the university to continue welcoming non-U.S. students while the case proceeds.
On Monday, Harvard's lawyers argued that the government violated the school's First Amendment rights and ignored the requirements of federal civil rights law, and that its actions were unlawfully arbitrary and capricious.
Any claim that Harvard is simply interested in getting money back is 'just false,' Lehotsky said. 'We're here for our constitutional rights.'
He called the government's actions an end-run around Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and compared it to the scene in 'Alice in Wonderland' in which the queen orders that the sentence comes first then the verdict afterward, with the funding freeze preceding the investigation required by statute.
'The government now says Title VI is totally irrelevant,' he said, arguing it had cooked up a post hoc rationale.
Harvard had asked the judge to grant a summary judgment, set aside the funding freezes and terminations, and block any similar actions as soon as possible before Sept. 3, after which the university believes the government will take the position that restoration of the funds is not possible.
Velchik, the Justice Department attorney – himself a Harvard alumnus – defended the government's decisions to slash the university's funding in response to what he said was its failure to tackle antisemitism.
'Harvard does not have a monopoly on the truth,' he said. Those same funds would be 'better spent going to HBCUs or community colleges.'
The government canceled the grants under an obscure regulation that allows it to terminate funding when they no longer align with agency priorities. 'Harvard should have read the fine print,' Velchik said.
Although Burroughs pushed both sides to justify their arguments, she appeared skeptical of the administration's rationale for the cuts.
She repeatedly pressed the government on what process it had followed in deciding to terminate a major portion of Harvard's federal funding.
'This is a big stumbling block for me,' she said, even as she acknowledged the government had argued some of its points well. (A 'Harvard education is paying off for you,' she told Velchik.)
Burroughs noted that the government had apparently slashed Harvard's funding without following any established procedure or even examining the steps Harvard itself had taken to combat antisemitism.
If the administration can base its decision on reasons connected to protected speech, Burroughs said, the consequences for 'constitutional law are staggering.'
At one point, Velchik appeared to grow emotional. He spoke about wanting to go to Harvard since he was a child, then seeing the campus 'besieged by protesters' and hearing about Jewish students wearing baseball caps to hide their kippot, a visible sign of their identity. 'It's sick. Federal taxpayers should not support this,' he said.
Burroughs also spoke about the case in unusually personal terms. 'I am both Jewish and American,' she said. Harvard itself has acknowledged antisemitism as an issue, she said.
But 'what is the connection to cutting off funding to Alzheimer's or cancer research?' she asked. 'One could argue it hurts Americans and Jews.'
A complaint by Harvard's chapter of the American Association of University Professors against the administration, filed before the university took action, is being heard concurrently with Harvard's case.
In its court filings, the Justice Department urged Burroughs to reject Harvard's request for summary judgment.
Summary judgment is a motion in which a party in a civil suit asks a judge to decide a case before it goes to trial.
To win a summary judgment, the party filing the motion must show there is no genuine dispute over the central facts of the case and they would prevail on the legal merits if the case were to go to trial.
Harvard supporters, with crimson colored shirts, signs and hats along with American flag pins, crowded around the main entrance of the John Joseph Moakley federal courthouse Monday afternoon. About 100 alumni, faculty, staff and students rallied in a joint protest with the Crimson Courage alumni group and supporters of the American Association of University Professors union.
'What the federal administration is doing is basically co-opting American values for their own political ends, and we are determined to say this is not what America is about,' said Evelyn J. Kim, a co-chair of the Crimson Courage communications team and a 1995 Harvard graduate. 'America is about the values that allow for Harvard to exist.'
Walter Willett, 80, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, biked to the rally to deliver a speech to the group. In May, $3.6 million of National Institutes of Health grant money that funded Willett's research on breast cancer and women's and men's health was cut, he said. It is critical to push back against the administration, Willett said. 'In this case, our basic freedom – what we're fighting for – is also at stake.'
The stakes are high – and not just for Harvard.
More than a dozen amicus briefs filed in support of Harvard argue that the administration is imperiling academic freedom, the autonomy of institutions of higher education and the decades-long research partnership between universities and the federal government.
Eighteen former officials who served in past Democratic and Republican administrations noted in a brief that they were aware of no instances in more than 40 years where federal funds had been terminated under Title VI, the provision of civil rights law that Trump officials have in some cases cited in slashing Harvard's grants.
The administration received outside support in a brief filed by the attorneys general of 16 states, led by Iowa. 'There are apparently three constant truths in American life: death, taxes, and Harvard University's discrimination against Jews,' it said, citing Harvard's own internal report on antisemitism on campus.
Harvard has taken numerous steps to address antisemitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war in the 2023-2024 academic year sparked concerns from some Jewish and Israeli students, but the administration has repeatedly said the problem persists and must be acted upon forcefully.
James McAffrey, 22, a senior and first-generation college student from Oklahoma, co-chairs the Harvard Students for Freedom, a student group that joined the rally Monday to support the school.
He said the administration's actions pose a threat to the nation's well-being.
'I think the reality is it's time for us to root out the evils of anti-Americanism in the Trump administration,' he said.
Hashtags

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


Nikkei Asia
42 minutes ago
- Nikkei Asia
Japan stocks approach all-time high on US trade deal, Ishiba speculation
Markets JGB yields at 17-year high and volatility hits the yen as Trump OKs 15% levy Since the U.S. introduced "reciprocal" tariffs in early April, Japan has been trying to negotiate a deal, but the talks became snagged over a separate 25% levy on cars. (Photo by Nanami Sato) JADA NAGUMO TOKYO -- Japanese stocks soared and government bonds plunged on Wednesday as a trade deal between Tokyo and Washington brought relief to investors. Speculation over the likelihood that Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba will resign also temporarily pushed the yen lower, while propelling stocks higher. U.S. President Donald Trump said the two countries reached a deal under which Japan will invest $550 billion in the U.S. and pay a 15% 'reciprocal' tariff on exports. Washington had previously announced a 25% tariff that was to go into effect on Aug. 1.


Yomiuri Shimbun
an hour ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Japan PM Ishiba Meets with Former Prime Ministers; They Discuss ‘Sense of Crisis' Following Election Defeat
Hot word : #Trump Tariffs #Upper House Election #Earthquake #2025 Expo Osaka #Rice Crisis Home > Shigeru Ishiba【タグ】


Japan Today
2 hours ago
- Japan Today
Trump announces 'massive' Japan trade deal including 15% tariff
By Daniel STUBLEN US President Donald Trump announced Tuesday a "massive" trade deal with Japan, cutting a threatened 25-percent tariff to 15 percent ahead of an August 1 deadline. Trump has vowed to hit dozens of countries with punitive tariffs if they don't strike a deal with the United States by next month. So far, Trump has only announced pacts with Japan, Britain, Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia, while talks continue with other trade partners. "We just completed a massive Deal with Japan, perhaps the largest Deal ever made," Trump said on his Truth Social platform. Trump said that under the deal, "Japan will invest, at my direction, $550 Billion Dollars into the United States, which will receive 90% of the Profits." He did not provide further details on the unusual investment plan, but said the deal "will create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs." Japanese imports into the United States were already subject to a 10-percent tariff, which would have risen to 25 percent on August 1 without a deal. Duties of 25 percent on Japanese autos -- an industry accounting for eight percent of Japanese jobs -- were also already in place, as well as 50 percent on steel and aluminum. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said on Wednesday in Tokyo that the autos levy was cut to 15 percent. "We are the first (country) in the world to reduce tariffs on automobiles and auto parts, with no limits on volume," he told reporters. "We think it is a great achievement that we were able to get the largest cut (in tariffs) among countries which have trade surpluses with the US," he said. This sent Japanese auto stocks soaring on Wednesday, including Toyota which rocketed more than 12 percent. US-bound shipments of Japanese cars tumbled 26.7 percent in June, stoking fears that Japan could fall into a technical recession. Last year vehicles accounted for around 28 percent of Japan's 21.3 trillion yen ($142 billion) of exports to the world's biggest economy. To Trump's annoyance, US-made cars sell poorly in Japan, with only hundreds sold annually for the likes of General Motors, compared to millions of Toyotas bought by US motorists. The US president also wanted Japan to increase imports of rice, the price of which has soared in recent months in the Asian giant, and of US oil and gas. Rice imports? - But Trump said Tuesday that Japan has agreed to "open their Country to Trade including Cars and Trucks, Rice and certain other Agricultural Products, and other things." Rice imports are a sensitive issue in Japan, and Ishiba's government -- which lost its upper house majority in elections on Sunday -- had previously ruled out any concessions. Ishiba, whose future is uncertain following the election, said on Wednesday that the deal does not sacrifice Japan's agricultural sector. Trump has been under pressure to wrap up trade pacts after promising a flurry of deals ahead of his August 1 tariff deadline. Earlier on Tuesday, he announced a deal had been reached with the Philippines which would see the country face 19 percent tariffs on its exports. The White House also laid out details of a deal with Indonesia, which would see it ease critical mineral export restrictions and also face a 19 percent tariff, down from a threatened 32 percent. Indonesian goods deemed to have been transshipped to avoid higher duties elsewhere, however, will be tariffed at 40 percent, a US official told reporters Tuesday. After an escalatory tit-for-tat with China, the two major economies agreed to a temporary lowering of tariffs, with another round of negotiations expected next week in Stockholm. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has imposed a sweeping 10 percent tariff on allies and competitors alike, alongside steeper levels on steel, aluminum and autos. Legal challenges to Trump's non-sectoral tariffs are ongoing. © 2025 AFP