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
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why does the White House want to redesign gas cans? Explaining the situation
The White House says it wants to 'Make Gas Cans Great Again.' Under a plan announced July 24 by President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency, the federal government is encouraging manufacturers to add vents to portable fuel containers, also known as gas cans. It would effectively reverse a 2009-rule by federal environmental officials at the time that required portable gas cans - used for lawnmowers, chainsaws, ATVS and stranded vehicles - to have special vents that stop the vapors from escaping. Proponents of that rule - which was finalized in 2007 - said the vapors that escape contributed to ozone pollution. But the 2009 rule created an online market for pre-ban gas cans among buyers dissatisfied with the new cans. Why does Trump want to redesign gas cans? 'Gas cans used to pour gas,' Trump's head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, said on X, formerly Twitter. 'Now they just dribble like a child's sippy cup.' But many modern designs are often infuriatingly ineffective at actually filling tanks because the vents work so poorly, critics argue. Instead of stopping vapors from flowing out the complicated spouts and relief valves, the new designs often cause gasoline spills, which some critics say are far worse than a tiny amount of vapor escaping from an older design. Some rules for gas cans will still remain in place Other rules for gas cans have to remain in place under federal law, like making sure they're child-resistant and limiting the risk of flash fires. What happens next for gas cans? The EPA's announcement is non-binding for manufacturers and doesn't prohibit the vents. Rather, the EPA is asking manufacturers to redesign the gas cans to have vents 'to facilitate fast and smooth fuel flow.' This article contains material from USA TODAY Daniel Munoz covers business, consumer affairs, labor and the economy for and The Record. Email: munozd@ Twitter:@danielmunoz100 and Facebook This article originally appeared on Gas can redesign considered by Trump White House. Here's why
Politico
2 minutes ago
- Politico
ICE Is Overplaying Its Hand. We've Seen It Happen Before.
Out of this breach emerged the Compromise of 1850, a grand bargain designed to preserve the Union. Under its provisions, California entered the Union as a free state, but the citizens of other former Mexican territories were left to make their own determinations about slavery. Congress abolished the slave trade, but not slavery, in Washington, D.C. And, in return for these concessions, Southern politicians secured what would prove to be the most incendiary component of the deal: the Fugitive Slave Act (FSA) of 1850. The new act inspired widespread disgust throughout the North. The law stripped accused runaways of their right to trial by jury and allowed individual cases to be bumped up from state courts to special federal courts. As an extra incentive to federal commissioners adjudicating such cases, it provided a $10 fee when a defendant was remanded to slavery but only $5 for a finding rendered against the slave owner. Most obnoxious to many Northerners, the law stipulated harsh fines and prison sentences for any citizen who refused to cooperate with or aid federal authorities in the capture of accused fugitives — much in the same way the Trump administration has threatened to jail persons who impede its immigration raids. Before the FSA, formerly enslaved people were able to build lives for themselves in many northern communities. They found homes, took jobs, made friends, started families, formed churches. But after the FSA, they were permanent fugitives — and anyone who employed them, associated with them or provided them housing were accomplices. Early enforcement made immediate martyrs of ordinary people and pierced the illusion that slavery was just a Southern problem. In 1851 federal agents in Boston arrested Thomas Sims, who had escaped enslavement in Georgia, and marched him to a federal courthouse under guard by more than 300 armed soldiers to prevent a rescue. For Boston, a city whose history was steeped in the struggle against King George's standing army, it was an ominous display. Sims' hearing was, just as the law intended, shambolic, and he was ultimately returned to Georgia. (He would later escape a second time during the Civil War.) Want to read more stories like this? POLITICO Weekend delivers gripping reads, smart analysis and a bit of high-minded fun every Friday. Sign up for the newsletter. That same year, Shadrach Minkins, a waiter who had also fled enslavement to Boston, was seized in broad daylight. This time, word traveled fast, and a local 'vigilance committee' — interracial groups formed to monitor and, when necessary, resist enforcement of the fugitive slave law — assembled, with an eye toward liberating the accused man. Awaiting a hearing in federal custody, Minkins was suddenly rescued in a dramatic confrontation witnessed by attorney Richard H. Dana, Jr. 'We heard a shout from across the courthouse,' Dana recalled, 'continued into a yell of triumph, and in an instant after down the steps came two negroes bearing the prisoner between them with his clothes half torn off, and so stupefied by his sudden rescue and the violence of the dragging off that he sat almost dumb, and I thought had fainted. ... It was all done in an instant, too quick to be believed.' Minkins made it to Montreal, where he lived the rest of his life in freedom.
New York Post
3 minutes ago
- New York Post
Psychologists predicted Trump's 2024 win before a single vote was cast — here's how they did it
Psychologists pulled off what political pundits and polls failed to do: predict the 2024 presidential election winner. Before a single ballot was cast in 2024, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania say they already predicted Donald Trump as the winner by tracking how optimistically each candidate explained bad news. While Trump's tone grew increasingly upbeat in the final weeks of the campaign, Kamala Harris's stayed flat. That shift correctly forecast not just that Trump would win, but by how much, according to a new study from Penn's Positive Psychology Center. 4 Trump's 2024 win was predicted weeks before the election by UPenn psychologists who tracked his rising optimism — a shift that set him apart from Kamala Harris, according to a new study. The Washington Post via Getty Images 'Starting around October 10 or so, Trump started to get significantly more optimistic,' Martin Seligman, the study's co-author and a professor of psychology at Penn, told The Post. 'By the 27th, it was a very large difference between Harris and Trump.' The team analyzed 1,389 explanations of negative events — such as war, crime, or economic hardship — from both candidates. Their dataset drew from speeches, interviews, and their only presidential debate, all delivered between early September and October 27. Each explanation was scored using the CAVE method, or Content Analysis of Verbatim Explanations, a positive psychology technique that analyzes how people explain events in speech or writing. Researchers used it to measure optimism by assessing whether causes were described as temporary, specific, and fixable. The narrower and solvable the cause, the more 'optimistic' the candidate's message. 4 Kamala Harris and Donald Trump spoke during a presidential debate at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on September 10, 2024. AFP via Getty Images Trump referenced more than 1,000 negative issues or events — over four times the number cited by Harris — often blaming outside forces while insisting the problems were fixable, usually by himself, the study found. Harris, by contrast, described deep, lasting threats with little sense of resolution, Seligman said. To see whether any other speech patterns could have predicted the results, the researchers also looked at emotional tone, focus on past vs. future and language about control or responsibility. None of them tracked with the outcome. Optimism stood alone. Seligman's earlier research found that more optimism predicted the winner in 9 out of the 10 elections between 1948 and 1984. 4 Before a single ballot was cast in 2024, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania say they already predicted Donald Trump as the winner by tracking how optimistically each candidate explained bad news. AFP via Getty Images After that, he advised both political parties on using optimism in their campaigns. But when candidates began scripting fake optimism, he shelved the method. He only revived it this cycle because Trump's off-the-cuff style allowed for real-time analysis. The researchers encrypted their prediction before Election Day and shared it with four outside verifiers, including Wall Street Journal reporters Lara Seligman — daughter of Martin Seligman — and Al Hunt, University of Washington political scientist Dan Chirot, and Hope College psychologist Dave Myers, before publishing the results after the race. 4 'Starting around October 10 or so, Trump started to get significantly more optimistic,' Martin Seligman, the study's co-author and a professor of psychology at Penn, told The Post. 'By the 27th, it was a very large difference between Harris and Trump.' Getty Images 'We're the only people who predicted a Trump election, as far as I know,' Seligman said. A separate forecasting model, based on economic conditions and presidential approval ratings, was developed by Cornell University professor Peter Enns and also correctly predicted Trump's win in all 50 states. The findings suggest voters respond more favorably to optimistic candidates who present problems as fixable rather than systemic — and that Trump's tendency to 'go off script' gave researchers an authentic glimpse of his true mindset, Seligman said. 'When optimism is genuine, I think there's a lot of reason to believe that the American public wants optimism and wants hope,' he said. 'It speaks to the general optimistic slant of American history.'
