Latest news with #MichaelVelchik
Yahoo
01-08-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘That Harvard education is paying off for you': Judge jabs at Trump lawyer in Harvard case
Judge Allison D. Burroughs, who is overseeing Harvard University's lawsuit against the Trump administration over canceled government funding for the university, isn't being shy with her commentary on the suit. During a court hearing Monday, Burroughs characterized a Trump administration argument as 'a little bit mind-boggling.' President Donald Trump, for his part, took to Truth Social to take aim at Burroughs on Monday, calling her a 'TOTAL DISASTER' and an 'automatic 'loss' for the People of our Country.' During the Monday court date, Burroughs questioned Michael Velchik, the lawyer representing the Trump administration, who is also a Harvard alum. 'Lonely over there?' Burroughs asked Velchik at the beginning of the hearing, who was met by eight lawyers from two cases on the Harvard side. 'The executive branch speaks with one voice,' Velchik said. During the hearing, Burroughs pushed back on whether the federal government could cancel grants across the institution en masse without substantially proving that researchers or labs had engaged in antisemitism. This is what she characterized as a 'little bit mind-boggling' and said that 'there's no documentation, no procedure.' She added that the 'consequences of that in terms of the constitutional law are staggering to me.' She said that taking away grants from labs and researchers could hurt 'Americans and Jews.' Velchik argued that it is under the federal government's authority to terminate any funding that doesn't align with federal priorities. Holding up a black binder with Harvard's report on antisemitism, he said it is clear there is an issue at the university. 'You're waving that around,' the judge shot back, noting that the report was made public after the White House began taking action against Harvard. He said the institution hasn't been adequately addressing the issue. 'How do you know that Harvard is not complying?' Burroughs said. While she seemed to mostly aim her questions at the Trump administration's lawyer, she gave Velchik a brief — albeit pointed — compliment. 'I hear what you are saying, and you're saying it very well. That Harvard education is paying off for you,' Burroughs said. In his Truth Social post on Monday, Trump pointed to Harvard as an institution that is 'anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-America' and implied that Burroughs will rule in the university's favor. '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, much of which had been given without explanation. It is a longtime commitment to Fairness in Funding Education, and the Trump Administration will not stop until there is VICTORY,' Trump said. What has happened between the Trump admin and Harvard? The Trump administration has gone after Harvard since April, cutting billions of dollars. Demanding an overhaul of Harvard's leadership structure, admissions and hiring — the federal government warned the school could risk losing $9 billion in funding. Harvard rejected those demands, stating they seek to 'invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court.' Then the fight over funding occurred. It began with a $2.2 billion funding freeze on April 14 after the school refused to comply with the federal administration's demands. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit on April 21, arguing that its constitutional rights had been violated by the government's threats to pull billions of dollars in funding. Harvard President Alan Garber also signed onto a letter with hundreds of other university presidents pushing back against 'government overreach and political interference' by the Trump administration. At the beginning of May, the Trump administration said it would bar Harvard University from acquiring new federal grants while the school continues to refuse to comply with the administration's demands for change on its campus. A few days later, eight federal agencies cut $450 million in grants and then the United States Department of Health and Human Services cut $60 million in grants from the university. Harvard went on to amend its lawsuit against the Trump administration. On May 16, a wave of nearly one thousand federal research grant terminations began, amounting to more than $2.4 billion, according to an analysis by Nature. In response, Harvard established a new Presidential Priorities Fund, asking for donations in the midst of federal cuts. Some of Harvard's schools, including its School of Public Health, took to social media to ask for donations after nearly every single federal grant had been terminated. Other investigations and threats have been made against the institution, some of which have also focused on threatening the university's ability to enroll international students. That is the university's second lawsuit. More Higher Ed As Harvard faces federal funding cuts, its medical school secures new donations Federal judge questions cuts to Harvard's federal funding, its links to antisemitism How Massachusetts is training campus police to handle hate crimes in 2025 Did the Defense Dept. cancel a grant to Harvard, then pay it anyway? Harvard extends hiring freeze, says Trump actions could cost school $1B a year Read the original article on MassLive.
NZ Herald
22-07-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Harvard slams Trump administration funding cuts in pivotal court hearing
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 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 anti-Semitism', he said. President Donald Trump reacted to the hearing on 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 US$9 billion ($15b) 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 anti-Semitism 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 has been the Trump administration's biggest target. Photo / Allison Robbert, The Washington Post Harvard refused to comply. Hours later, the administration announced it would freeze more than US$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 enrol 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 favour, allowing the university to continue welcoming non-US 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 afterwards, 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 September 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 anti-Semitism. '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 cancelled 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 sceptical 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 anti-Semitism. 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 anti-Semitism 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-coloured shirts, signs and hats along with American flag pins, crowded around the main entrance of the John Joseph Moakley federal courthouse on 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, US$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.' Harvard has taken numerous steps to address anti-Semitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war sparked concerns. Photo / Josh Reynolds, The Washington Post The stakes are high – and not just for Harvard. More than a dozen amicus briefs filed in support of Harvard argue the administration is imperilling 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 anti-Semitism on campus. Harvard has taken numerous steps to address anti-Semitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war in the 2023-24 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 on Monday to support the school. He said the administration's actions pose a threat to the nation's wellbeing. 'I think the reality is it's time for us to root out the evils of anti-Americanism in the Trump administration,' he said.
CBS News
21-07-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Fight over federal funding for Harvard is now in the hands of a judge
Lawyers for Harvard and the Trump administration asked a federal judge in Boston to decide whether the government has the power to revoke billions in funds from the elite university on Monday. Steven Lehotsky, an attorney representing Harvard, told U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs that the federal government violated Harvard's First Amendment rights while Attorney Michael Velchik, who represents the Trump administration, said the government has the power to revoke its contracts and re-allocate the funds elsewhere. The fight between the Ivy League school and the federal government picked up speed in the spring when the Trump administration sent Harvard a letter demanding it make changes to admissions and hiring policies and have outside scrutiny of some of its programs in order to combat antisemitism on campus. Harvard refused to comply with the letter saying it threatened the university's autonomy and the government shot back by moving to freeze $2.2 billion in funds. Lehotsky argued Monday that the government misused the Civil Rights Act by punishing all of Harvard's labs and grant recipients with the revocation of money, regardless of whether they had anything to do with alleged antisemitism. "Alice in Wonderland, sentence first, verdict later," Lehotsky said. Michael Velchik began his oral arguments by laying out instances in which he argued Jewish students felt uncomfortable or scared at Harvard. Then, he said the government was simply revoking Harvard's funds because the university violated its contracts with the government. "Harvard is here because it wants the money. It wants billions of dollars in grant dollars and we know that," Velchik said. Judge Burroughs, at one point, questioned whether the administration can cancel contracts just because it disagrees with a certain viewpoint calling the argument, "a bit mind boggling." Now, the case is in Burroughs' hands and legal experts say other schools around the country are watching. "You see institutions in Minnesota, in California, it's just like all over the country, they're definitely following this because it has implications for what it means for an institution to have autonomy," said Raquel Muniz, at associate professor of education at Boston College's Lynch School of Education and Associate professor at the Boston College School of Law. Whoever wins the day, some legal experts believe the case could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
Reuters
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Harvard battles Trump administration in court over canceled funding
BOSTON, July 21 (Reuters) - Harvard University urged a federal judge on Monday to order U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to restore about $2.5 billion in canceled federal grants and cease efforts to cut off research funding to the prestigious Ivy League school. But a lawyer for the Trump administration told the judge the canceled grants reflect a government priority not to send money to institutions that practice antisemitism. "Harvard prioritized campus protestors over cancer research," said Michael Velchik, a senior lawyer at the U.S. Justice Department. He told the judge she shouldn't be hearing the case in the first place, arguing the matter belonged in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which handles monetary disputes. The court hearing before U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston lasted more than two hours, but ended without a ruling. The case marks a crucial moment in the White House's escalating conflict with Harvard, which has been in the administration's crosshairs after it rejected a list of demands to make changes to its governance, hiring and admissions practices in April. The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university says hundreds of research projects including ones concerning cancer treatments, infectious diseases and Parkinson's disease will be in jeopardy unless the judge declares the grant cancellations unlawful. The country's oldest and richest university has become a central focus of the administration's broad campaign to leverage federal funding to force change at U.S. universities, which Trump says are gripped by antisemitic and "radical left" ideologies. Steven Lehotsky, a lawyer for Harvard, said the government has made wholesale cuts to research under the guise of combating antisemitism, but hasn't identified any connection between the two. "The administration has given no consideration to patients, the public at large and the harm of all this research being cut off," Lehotsky told the court. Among the earliest actions the administration took against Harvard was the cancellation of hundreds of grants awarded to researchers on the grounds that the school failed to do enough to address harassment of Jewish students on its campus. The Trump administration has since sought to bar international students from attending the school; threatened Harvard's accreditation status; and opened the door to cutting off more funds by finding it violated federal civil rights law. Burroughs said she had problems with the government's argument that it has the ability to terminate Harvard's federal funding grants for any policy reasons. "That's a major stumbling block for me," Burroughs said. Burroughs also questioned the government's stance that there doesn't have to be an adversarial process to suss out whether Harvard has taken steps to root out antisemtism on campus. "If you can make this decision, that we're going to withdraw all this funding for reasons oriented around speech, the consequences to that, in terms of constitutional law, are staggering to me," Burroughs said. Meanwhile, as part of Trump's spending and tax bill, the Republican-led Congress increased the federal excise tax on Harvard's income from its $53 billion endowment to 8% from 1.4%. Income from the endowment covers 40% of Harvard's operating budget. Harvard President Alan Garber said last week that the various federal actions since Trump returned to office in January could strip the school of nearly $1 billion annually, forcing it to lay off staff and freeze hiring. The amount includes the impact of the multi-year federal grants canceled by the Trump administration. Harvard has said it has taken steps to ensure its campus is welcoming to Jewish and Israeli students, who it acknowledges experienced "vicious and reprehensible" treatment following the onset of Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza in October 2023. But, Garber has said the administration's demands have gone far beyond addressing antisemitism and unlawfully seek to regulate the "intellectual conditions" on its campus by controlling who it hires and who it teaches. Those demands, which came in an April 11 letter from an administration task force, included calls for the private university to restructure its governance, alter its hiring and admissions practices to ensure an ideological balance of viewpoints and end certain academic programs. After Harvard rejected those demands, it said the administration began retaliating against it in violation of the free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment by abruptly cutting funding the school says is vital to supporting scientific and medical research. Burroughs, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, in a separate case has already barred the administration from halting its ability to host international students. She is expected to issue a written ruling in the funding case in the coming weeks.
