Latest news with #AllisonBurroughs
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
5 weapons in the Trump–Harvard war: The saga of frozen funds, fragile visas and more
American universities were once imagined as citadels of intellectual independence, buffered from the caprices of politics. The Trump–Harvard confrontation has stripped that illusion bare. What began as a technical dispute over federal grants and immigration policy has now ballooned into a courtroom brawl with nationwide stakes. Two major lawsuits are pending in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts—one over a $2.2 billion federal funding freeze, another over the revocation of SEVP certification threatening thousands of international students. Meanwhile, a potential $500 million settlement hangs over the proceedings, even as Judge Allison Burroughs weighs rulings that could redefine the limits of executive power over universities. Billions remain locked away, students and faculty are left in limbo, and a constitutional question looms: can the White House turn academic freedom into a pay-to-play privilege? Here, we dissect how funding, visas, social media, litigation, and students themselves have become weapons and pawns in this high-stakes battle for intellectual freedom in the United States. Funding as political dynamite The $2.2 billion freeze wasn't triggered by budget shortfalls or scientific failures—it was political muscle flexing. The administration argued that universities failing to align with 'agency priorities' could lose funding at will, turning federal research grants from investments in knowledge into ideological cudgels. The looming $500 million settlement proposal underscores the stakes: even the wealthiest university may need to effectively 'pay tribute' to regain funds it was already awarded, setting a dangerous precedent where political loyalty, not merit, decides who gets to pursue science. Visa as a weapon The SEVP decertification move effectively threatened deportation for thousands of Harvard's international students. These are scholars who cleared every legal hurdle to study in the US, only to find their right to remain tied to an unrelated political feud. If courts uphold this, international education becomes a high-risk gamble: one tweet, one order, and your legal status evaporates. Social Media as a policy trigger On April 15, a single Truth Social post railing against 'elite universities undermining American values' preceded real-world policy actions within days. The spectacle replaced deliberation; a digital rant reshaped immigration policy and funding flows. Governance by tweet means policy can be unpredictable, personal, and weaponised against institutions without due process. Litigation as the only shield Harvard filed two lawsuits in as many months simply to keep functioning. Litigation is expensive, slow, and reactive—but in this climate, it is the only defence left. Most universities don't have Harvard's $50 billion endowment to bankroll legal wars, meaning many will pre-emptively self-censor or comply to avoid conflict, shrinking the space for dissent long before courts rule. Students as pawns in a political chessboard Students bore the brunt of the standoff: research stipends frozen, lab projects stalled, international enrolments in limbo, and campus life upended. Their futures became bargaining chips in a broader ideological war between a populist White House and an academic institution asserting its independence. The lesson for students is stark: in this new order, their education is negotiable collateral. Harvard's win or everyone's loss? The lawsuits grind on, a potential $500 million settlement looms, but a precedent has already been set: A US president can attempt to dictate campus policy, freeze billions, and threaten thousands of students' futures in mere months. If the courts endorse this power play, academic freedom will become conditional, not constitutional. Even Harvard, with all its wealth and clout, is vulnerable. For the vast majority of universities and students, this battle is more than a headline—it's a preview of an American education system where intellectual independence survives only until the next political whim decides otherwise. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Daily Mail
23-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Trump admin launches new investigation into Harvard
President Donald Trump is escalating his war on Harvard with a new investigation that targets the university's ability to sponsor visas for international students. The State Department is leading the probe into Harvard's Exchange Visitor Program, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Wednesday. 'To maintain their privilege to sponsor exchange visitors, sponsors must comply with all regulations, including conducting their programs in a manner that does not undermine the foreign policy objectives or compromise the national security interests of the United States,' Rubio said in a statement. Rubio said the investigation will seek to ensure that its programs 'do not run contrary to our nation´s interests.' 'The American people have the right to expect their universities to uphold national security, comply with the law and provide safe environments for all students.' The Exchange Visitor Program, which is designed to promote cross-culture education and understanding, includes students and professors as well as researchers, interns and au pairs. Harvard called the investigation 'yet another retaliatory step taken by the administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights.' The administration first revoked student visas in May but that move was blocked by federal judge Allison Burroughs. In May, U.S. embassies were instructed to pause all new visa interviews for applicants as it revised social media protocols to require the disclosure of past online postings. It's a way for State Department officials to identify 'hostility toward U.S. culture, government or institutions.' The Trump administration's newest move comes as the university is suing the government to stop its attempt to host international students. The State Department specifically targets people at Harvard under J-1 visas, which allow foreign nationals to come to the U.S. to participate in educational or cultural exchange programs but stipulates they are expected to return to their home countries. That is different from the F-1 visa program, which is strictly for students and is largely administered by the Department of Homeland Security. About one in four students at Harvard is international, according to the university. Rubio sent a letter to Harvard giving the university one week to produce a lengthy list of university records related to the visa program, The New York Times reported. He said his department plans to interview university staff associated with the program and also may want to speak with visa holders. Judge Burroughs is also hearing Harvard's lawsuit against the government for blocking its federal grants. In a recent hearing, her questions suggested she had doubts about the legality of the government's effort to tamper the university's grants and subsequent research. President Trump has waged war on elite universities, accusing them of antisemitism and blasting their 'woke' ideology. He claims the top schools in the country are controlled by 'Marxist maniacs and lunatics.' He also has railed against Harvard and other schools for not stopping pro-Palestine protests that popped up in the wake of the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023. Trump has demanded Harvard eliminate its diversity, equity, and inclusion program; cut the power of its professors; refuse foreign students; and ban masks at campus protests.
Sky News
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Sky News
What you need to know as Harvard and Trump administration in court over funding
The Trump administration and Harvard University have gone head-to-head in federal court over the government's threats to cut billions from the school's 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".
Yomiuri Shimbun
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Harvard Slams Trump Administration Funding Cuts in Pivotal Court Hearing
BOSTON – Attorneys for the nation's oldest university said Monday that the Trump administration's reasons for withholding billions in federal funding were 'cooked up,' and unconstitutional, sparring with the government during a key hearing in a legal battle that could determine whether the president's attacks on higher education will stand. 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.
The Guardian
21-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Harvard argues in court that Trump administration's $2.6bn cuts are illegal
Harvard University appeared in federal court on Monday to make the case that the Trump administration illegally cut $2.6bn from the storied college – a major test of the administration's efforts to reshape higher education institutions by threatening their financial viability. US district judge Allison Burroughs heard arguments from Harvard and the Department of Justice. The cuts, imposed earlier this year, have halted major research efforts and Harvard argues they are a politically motivated attempt to pressure the school into adopting federal policies on student conduct, admissions, antisemitism and diversity. A ruling in favor of the university would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. 'This case involves the government's efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking at Harvard,' the university said in its complaint. 'All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: allow the government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution's ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions.' The case is being closely watched by other universities that have seen their research funds axed by the administration, which has suspended or threatened billions in grants and contracts from several institutions. The White House is reportedly close to finalizing a deal with Columbia University – the first institution it targeted for cuts – to restore $400m in funding in exchange for the university implementing a series of measures meeting the administration's ideological demands. Harvard is the first – and so far only – university to sue. The university has separately sued the administration over its revocation of Harvard's eligibility to host international students. (Trump has also threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status, but he has taken no action to that effect so far.) Burroughs is overseeing both of Harvard's cases against the administration and in June issued an injunction stopping the government from barring foreign Harvard students from entering the country. Monday's hearing was the first time the court heard arguments about the legality of the administration's funding cuts. The hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing. Harvard's lawsuit accuses Donald Trump's administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an 11 April letter from a federal antisemitism taskforce. The 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. The letter was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus. A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said in court on Monday that the government has 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 antisemitism. 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 antisemitic. 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 antisemitism. 'The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' Burroughs 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.' Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Alan Garber, Harvard's president, pledged to fight antisemitism 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'. The same day Harvard rejected the demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2bn in research grants. Linda McMahon, the US education secretary, declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing that 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. 'It is the policy of the United States under the Trump administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,' it said in court documents. Last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism – a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence'. While Harvard's cases against the administration proceeds in court, the university is reportedly also negotiating with the administration for a deal that might end the dispute out of court.
