Harvard takes on the Trump administration in federal court
US District Judge Allison Burroughs heard oral arguments from Harvard's legal team and a lawyer for the Department of Justice over the school's request she declare the funding freeze unlawful. It marked a critical moment for what's become the flashpoint of a major clash over academic freedom, federal funding, and campus oversight – and a belief inside the White House that targeting the country's most elite academic institutions is a winning political issue for President Donald Trump.
Harvard lawyer Steven Lehotsky argued Monday the government is in 'blatant and unrepentant violation' of the First Amendment, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Cutting funding under the guise of combatting antisemitism was 'arbitrary and capricious,' Lehotsky said.
The cuts will 'devastate long-running research projects, eviscerate labs, and hurt careers,' he said.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, says Harvard has failed to address antisemitism on campus in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel and that it is acting within its authority.
'It is the policy of the United States under the Trump Administration not to fund institutions that failed to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,' the administration has argued.
Trump administration lawyer Michael Velchik, himself a Harvard alumnus, framed the lawsuit as a contract dispute, arguing the federal government has the right to terminate the contract. Harvard, he said, 'should've read the fine print,' which, he said, stated the government could decide providing funding to the university was 'no longer aligned with agency priorities,' pointing to a January executive order from Trump on the issue of antisemitism.
Harvard says it is taking substantive steps to address root causes of antisemitism, including updating its rules around using campus space for protests, reviewing disciplinary processes, and expanding training on combating antisemitism.
Noting she is 'both Jewish and an American,' Burroughs pressed Velchik repeatedly during the hearing on that argument, questioning the relationship between cutting funding to cancer research and ending antisemitism.
'You're not taking away grants from labs that could have been antisemitic, but just cut off funding in a way one could argue hurts Americans and Jews,' she said.
The government 'vehemently disagrees,' viewing combating antisemitism as a 'legitimate priority' and the funding cuts within its rights, Velchik responded.
Burroughs pressed Velchik once more.
'How do you know?' she said, adding Harvard has identified antisemitism as a problem on campus and has said it is taking steps to address it, but the government has made 'no documentation, no procedure, no process to suss out whether they've taken enough steps.' The potential consequences to constitutional law are 'staggering to me,' she said.
During the rebuttal portion of the hearing, Velchik recalled his own parents' wishes for his education. 'One of my earliest memories was hearing the word, 'Harvard.' I asked my mom, 'What's Harvard?' And she looked at me and told me, 'If you get into Harvard, your father will cry.''
'Every hardworking American parent wants their child to go to school, study, work hard, follow the rules, so that they can go to Harvard to get the best education in the world to set them up for success,' he said.
But Harvard, Velchik continued, has been 'besieged' by antisemitism over the past two years. 'It's sick. Federal taxpayer dollars should not support this,' he said.
The Trump administration, he said, is not 'anti-Harvard.'
'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard, pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard' and '(wants) a Harvard for all Americans, the best research institution in the world,' Velchik said.
Burroughs asked how Harvard could be the best when the government rescinds $2.2 billion in research funding.
Asked for comment ahead of the hearing, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told CNN in a statement, 'The Trump Administration's proposition is simple and commonsense: Don't allow antisemitism and DEI to run your campus, don't break the law, and protect the civil liberties of all students.'
Fields continued, 'We are confident that Harvard will eventually come around and support the president's vision, and through good-faith conversations and negotiations, a good deal is more than possible.'
In April, the Trump administration wrote to Harvard President Alan Garber demanding governance and leadership reform, merit-based hiring and admissions reform, viewpoint diversity in admissions and hiring, and the discontinuation of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, among other demands.
The administration has terminated $2.4 billion in federal awards for Harvard, representing more than 950 ongoing research projects.
The university says the scientific research being punished by the federal funding freeze has nothing to do with antisemitism, pointing to its cutting-edge cancer prevention and treatment work, efforts to understand neurodegenerative disorders such as like Parkinson's disease, and boosting awareness and understanding of emerging biological threats.
In one filing from Harvard last month, a Defense Department official told others in the Trump administration that a $12 million biological threat research grant shouldn't be terminated because it posed 'grave and immediate harm to national security.'
Ultimately, Velchik argued for the Trump administration, the case is about money.
Lehotsky, on behalf of Harvard, said it's about 'so much more' for the university and higher education.
A small circle of Harvard leadership and White House officials had been negotiating toward a deal to end multiple legal battles between the administration and the university — including a separate lawsuit against the Trump administration over its decision earlier this year to hastily revoke the school's ability to enroll international students. Burroughs, of the federal court in Boston, ruled in Harvard's favor in that case, though the decision didn't preclude the administration from undertaking a formal review process that could eventually result in the university being unable to host foreign students and scholars.
Trump appeared to indicate that those talks were bearing fruit last month.
'Many people have been asking what is going on with Harvard University and their largescale improprieties that we have been addressing, looking for a solution. We have been working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so,' he said in a June 20 social media post.
But the negotiations appeared to subsequently derail.
The administration escalated its battle with the university days later, with an investigation finding the school in 'violent violation' of the Civil Rights Act, warning in a letter that a failure to immediately institute change 'will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard's relationship with the federal government.'
And days after that, the Department of Homeland Security sent the school administrative subpoenas regarding its Student Visitor and Exchange Program certification, seeking all relevant records, communications and other documents about Harvard's enforcement of immigration laws.
Harvard has sent some signals it is willing to work with the Trump administration, including earlier this month when The Harvard Crimson reported that websites for Harvard College centers serving minority and LGBTQ students and women disappeared. The White House welcomed that development, viewing it as a goodwill gesture one official described as 'good news.'
The Trump administration is in discussions with Columbia University and is on the cusp of a possible multimillion-dollar settlement. A group of Columbia officials attended a Thursday meeting at the White House, where, according to one source familiar with the negotiations, progress was made but a final deal was not inked.
Asked about the state of talks, Trump told CNN on July 4, 'I think we're going to probably settle with Harvard. We're going to probably settle with Columbia. They want to settle very badly. There's no rush.'
Asked how much money the settlement would entail, Trump said, 'A lot of money.'
Harvard has asked for an expedited final decision from Burroughs, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, in this case and says it must be decided 'no later than September 3, 2025, which is the first date by which Harvard must start submitting this paperwork that would finally close out grant funding.'
Burroughs on Monday said she had not yet made a decision in the case but would 'get an opinion out as quickly as we can.'
'I think the issue is whether there's a legitimate relationship between our distaste for discrimination and the approach the administration is taking,' she said.
Shortly after the hearing concluded Monday afternoon, Trump preemptively attacked Burroughs and prejudged the case's outcome in a post on social media.
'The Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed Judge. She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling,' the president wrote.
He added, 'How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN.'
CNN's Devan Cole and Katelyn Polantz contributed to this report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says Epstein 'stole' Virginia Giuffre and other young women from Mar-a-Lago spa
President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Jeffrey Epstein "stole" Virginia Giuffre and other young women who worked at the spa in his Mar-a-Lago club. "People were taken out of the spa, hired by him. In other words, gone," Trump told reporters on Air Force One as he returned from Scotland to Washington, where he continues to face fallout from his administration's handling of files related to Epstein. "And other people would come and complain, 'this guy is taking people from the spa.' I didn't know that," Trump continued. "And then when I heard about it, I told him, I said, 'Listen, we don't want you taking our people, whether it was spa or not spa.' I don't want him taking people. And he was fine. And then not too long after that, he did it again and I said, 'out of here.'" MORE: Trump, in Scotland, gives more details about his falling out with Jeffrey Epstein Trump was then asked if one of those women was Giuffre, an Epstein accuser who died by suicide this past April at the age of 41. Giuffre, ABC News previously reported, had accused Ghislaine Maxwell of recruiting her when she was 17 years old working as a locker-room attendant at Mar-a-Lago in 2000 and bringing her to Epstein's home for a massage. Maxwell denies those allegations. "I don't know. I think she worked at the spa, I think so, I think that was one of the people. Yeah, he stole her. And by the way, she had no complaints about us, none whatsoever," Trump responded. The comments appear to be the most detailed Trump has made publicly about the circumstances surrounding his falling out with Epstein, who died by suicide in prison in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. At the time of Epstein's arrest, Trump said they hadn't spoken in 15 years. Last week, White House communications director Steven Cheung had said Epstein was kicked out of Trump's club "for being a creep." Then on Monday, Trump framed their falling out as a result of Epstein poaching his employees after being warned not to. Asked about the apparent discrepancy between the two reasons, Trump asserted they are "the same thing." "You know, it's sort of a little bit of the same thing," he said. "But no, he took people that work for me, and I told him, 'don't do it anymore.' And he did it. I said, 'stay the hell out of here.'" Trump was asked by one reporter during the Air Force One gaggle, "Mr. President, Epstein has a certain reputation, obviously, but just curious where some of the workers that were taken from you were some of them young women?" He went on to respond, "Well, I don't want to say, but everyone knows the people that were taken. And it was the concept of taking people that work for me is bad. But that story has been pretty well out there. And the answer is yes, they were." MORE: Democratic senators ask Blanche to commit that DOJ won't advocate for pardon or commutation for Maxwell Maxwell, a longtime Epstein associate who is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking, is now publicly lobbying for a pardon. She appealed to Congress on that point on Tuesday so she could testify "openly and honestly" before the House Oversight Committee. When Maxwell sat down for nine hours of interviews with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche last week, her attorney David Markus said they hoped Trump "exercises that power in the right and just way." Blanche has not revealed what was discussed in the meetings, saying only that he would do so at the "appropriate time." Maxwell was granted limited immunity to speak with Blanche, sources told ABC News. President Trump continued to leave open the possibility of a pardon for Maxwell on Monday, saying he had the authority to do so but hadn't been asked. "It's in the news, that -- that aspect of it. But right now, it would be inappropriate to talk about it," Trump said.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fox News Tops July Ratings, But All Major News Networks See Decline Vs. 2024's Election Year Frenzy
Fox News again topped the July ratings, but all of the major news networks saw audience declines vs. 2024. That's not much of a surprise, as the month last year was a blockbuster one for news, with the Trump assassination attempt, the Republican National Convention and Joe Biden's decision to drop out of the presidential race. More from Deadline Versant Taps 'NBC Nightly News' EP Meghan Rafferty As Its Vice President Of News Standards Tom Rogers Joins Versant As Senior Adviser MSNBC's Daylong In-Person Live Event To Return In October In primetime for July, 2025, Fox News averaged 2.41 million viewers, down 30%, compared to MSNBC with 865,000, down 27%, and CNN with 497,000, down 42%. In the 25-54 demo, Fox News averaged 257,000, down 48%, while CNN posted 92,000, down 55%, and MSNBC had 81,000, down 40%. In total day, Fox News averaged 1.53 million, down 19%, while MSNBC posted 530,000, down 26%, and CNN averaged 370,000, down 29%. In the 25-54 demo, Fox News averaged 184,000, down 31%, while CNN posted 62,000, down 44%, and MSNBC was at 52,000, off by 37%. Fox News' The Five topped all cable news shows, averaging 3.53 million, followed by Jesse Watters Primetime with 3.14 million, Gutfeld! with 2.91 million, Hannity with 2.67 million and Special Report with 2.61 million. In the 25-54 demo, The Five led with 378,000, followed by Gutfeld! with 327,000, Jesse Watters Primetime with 323,000, Hannity with 302,000 and Special Report with 288,000. MSNBC's top regularly scheduled show was the once-a-week The Rachel Maddow Show, averaging 2.02 million viewers. CNN's top show was Anderson Cooper 360, averaging 573,000. Maddow also was the top show for MSNBC in the 25-54 demo, averaging 219,000. Newsnight was CNN's top show in the 25-54 demo, averaging 116,000. Other highlights: MSNBC noted that their new evening programs, The Briefing with Jen Psaki and The Weeknight have grown in the 25-54 demo since their launches in May. CNN pointed to the premiere of Live Aid: When Rock 'n' Roll Took on the World, drawing 795,000 in total viewers, the best performance for an original series premiere since February 2024, and a testament to Gen X nostalgia. Meanwhile, Fox News' daytime The Will Cain Show averaged 2.1 million viewers and 249,000 in the 25-54 demo, ranking in the top 10 among all cable news shows in total viewers and the demo, in what is turning out to be one of the year's most successful launches. Among other networks, Nexstar's NewsNation grew its total day audience by 6%, to 55,000, and its 25-54 number grew by 13% to 9,000. That's still a fraction of rivals, but in the middle of summer with plenty of distractions, all networks tout gains. Best of Deadline 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Emmys, Oscars, Grammys & More 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Starmer's plan to recognise Palestinian state labelled 'appeasement towards jihadist terrorists' by Netanyahu
Sir Keir Starmer's plan to recognise Palestine as a state has been attacked as "appeasement towards jihadist terrorists" by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The prime minister said by September unless Israel takes "substantive steps" to end the situation in Gaza, Israel agrees to a ceasefire, commits to a long-term sustainable peace, allows the UN to restart aid supplies and does not annexe the West Bank. About 250 MPs from all parties - half of them Labour - had signed a letter last week calling for Sir Keir to immediately recognise a Palestinian Keir said that by giving Israel a deadline of 9 September UN meeting, he hoped this would play a part "in changing the conditions on the ground, and making sure aid gets into making sure that there is hope of a two-state solution for the future". But Mr Netanyahu condemned the plan, saying Sir Keir "rewards Hamas's monstrous terrorism and punishes its victims". "A jihadist state on Israel's border today will threaten Britain tomorrow," he wrote on X. "Appeasement towards jihadist terrorists always fails. It will fail you too. It will not happen." The Israelis also accused Sir Keir of pandering to his MPs and France, after Emmanuel Macron committed to recognising a Palestinian state last week, and harming efforts to release Israeli hostages. Lib Dems and Greens: 'Bargaining chip' Sir Keir also faced accusations of using Palestinian state recognition as a "bargaining chip" by both the Lib Dems and the Green Party. Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey said a Palestinian state should have been recognised "months ago" and "far greater action" is needed to stop the humanitarian disaster in Gaza. Green Party foreign affairs spokesperson Ellie Chowns, who wants immediate state recognition, said it was a "cynical political gesture". Humza Yousaf, Scotland's former SNP first minister, who revealed a family member was killed in Gaza days ago, told Sky News statehood "shouldn't be dependent" upon the conditions Sir Keir has set for Israel, but is the "inalienable right" of the Palestinian people. The British Palestinian Committee, representing Palestinian interests in the UK, described conditions as "absurd and performative". UK Jewish groups seek clarity The Board of Deputies of British Jews, the UK's largest Jewish organisation, said it was "seeking urgent clarification" that the UK will not recognise Palestine as a state if Israeli hostages remain in Hamas captivity, or if Hamas keeps rejecting a ceasefire deal. The Labour Friends of Israel group said it has "shared goals" with the government but state recognition "will be a merely symbolic act unless the UK uses its influence to establish the principles of a meaningful pathway to a Palestinian state". Read more: What does recognising a Palestinian state mean?Children 'eating out of piles of garbage' as time runs out for Gaza Sarah Champion, Labour MP and chair of the international development committee, who started the MP letter calling for state recognition, said she was "delighted and relieved". However, she added: "I'm troubled our recognition appears conditional on Israel's actions." When Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced the plan at a UN meeting, he received applause. Not many other Labour MPs commented. Tories accuse Starmer of appeasing MPs Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused Sir Keir of being more focused on a "political problem for the Labour Party" than other issues facing the UK. "Recognising a Palestinian state won't bring the hostages home, won't end the war and won't get aid into Gaza," she posted on X. "This is political posturing at its very worst." Tory shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel said the announcement was "to appease his backbenchers" as "he knows that promises to recognise Palestine will not secure lasting peace". Trump did not discuss statehood with Starmer Donald Trump said he and Sir Keir "never did discuss" the PM's plan to recognise a Palestinian state during their meetings in Scotland the day before. However, Tammy Bruce, spokeswoman for the US state department, said Sir Keir's plan is a "slap in the face for the victims of October 7", which "rewards Hamas", the Telegraph reported.