Latest news with #Velchik
Time of India
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Why Judge Burroughs's skepticism marks a turning point in the US-Harvard funding clash
Harvard's $2.6 billion clash with US government faces key court scrutiny A federal court hearing on the lawsuit between Harvard University and the US government over a $2.6 billion funding freeze saw pointed questioning from United States District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, casting doubt on the administration's justification for the freeze. The case, which could determine the future of Harvard's research funding, centers on allegations that the university failed to address antisemitism on campus. At the hearing held in a packed courtroom in Boston, Burroughs pressed government attorney Michael K. Velchik on how the administration's decision to halt billions in research funding was tied to its stated goal of combating antisemitism at Harvard. The lawsuit has become a central point in a broader legal and political standoff between Harvard and President Donald J. Trump's administration, which has accused the university of permitting antisemitism and failing to uphold civil rights protections. Judge questions link between speech and research funding According to The Harvard Crimson, Judge Burroughs said during the hearing, "They're not funding speech, they're funding research. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like A genetic disorder that is damaging his organs. Help my son Donate For Health Donate Now Undo And you're tying that research to speech." She expressed skepticism about whether concerns about antisemitism could justify such steep funding cuts to the university's research enterprise. Velchik, representing the government, argued that the cuts were in response to pro-Palestine protests and incidents including the vandalism of the John Harvard statue after the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel. Velchik also said that the government was responding to complaints from students, donors, and law enforcement, and asserted that federal agencies had the right to redirect funds when grantee goals no longer aligned with government priorities. As reported by The Harvard Crimson, Burroughs responded that such a justification would allow the government to cancel grants "even if their termination violated the Constitution," calling the implications "staggering. " Harvard accuses the administration of First Amendment violations Harvard's legal team described the Trump administration's actions as unconstitutional. Steven P. Lehotsky, a lawyer for Harvard, argued that the government's funding freeze was "a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment," as quoted by The Harvard Crimson. The university has claimed the funding freeze was retaliatory, tied to its refusal to accept policy changes demanded by the administration. Funding freeze follows administration demands The funding freeze followed an April 11 letter from the government, mistakenly sent to Harvard leadership, which outlined a series of demands. These included external audits of academic departments, changes to hiring and admissions practices, elimination of diversity programs, and regular compliance reports. Harvard President Alan M. Garber rejected the demands, calling them "assertions of power, unmoored by the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard," as reported by The Harvard Crimson. Wider impact on research and student access The freeze has affected research projects across the university, including work on cancer treatments and other scientific initiatives. Harvard has implemented cost-cutting measures, layoffs, and hiring freezes. It has also sued the Trump administration a second time over visa restrictions and access to a federal database, which affected international student enrollment. Next steps in the lawsuit Judge Burroughs has not issued a final ruling but said a decision would come quickly. Harvard has requested a ruling by September 3, the government's deadline for submitting grant termination paperwork, as reported by The Harvard Crimson. Although settlement talks are ongoing, Harvard's faculty association, the American Association of University Professors, has requested to continue its separate legal challenge in case Harvard reaches an agreement before a final ruling is made. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Los Angeles Times
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Harvard seeks billions in funding restored at a pivotal hearing in its standoff with Trump
BOSTON — Harvard University appeared in federal court Monday in a pivotal case in its battle with the Trump administration, as the storied institution argued the government illegally cut $2.6 billion in federal funding. President Trump's administration has battered the nation's oldest and wealthiest university with sanctions for months as it presses a series of demands on the Ivy League school, which it decries as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. Harvard has resisted, and the lawsuit over the cuts to its research grants represents the primary challenge to the administration in a standoff that is being widely watched across higher education and beyond. A lawyer for Harvard, Steven Lehotsky, said at Monday's hearing the case is about the government trying to control the 'inner workings' of Harvard. The funding cuts, if not reversed, could lead to the loss of research, damaged careers and the closing of labs, he said. 'It's not about Harvard's conduct,' he said. 'It's about the government's conduct toward Harvard.' The case is before U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, who is presiding over lawsuits brought by Harvard against the administration's efforts to keep it from hosting international students. In that case, she temporarily blocked the administration's efforts. At Monday's hearing, Harvard asked her to reverse a series of funding freezes. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said the Trump administration has authority to cancel the grants after concluding the funding did not align with its priorities, namely Trump's executive order combating antisemitism. He argued Harvard allowed antisemitism to flourish at the university following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, including protesters camped out on campus chanting antisemitic slogans as well attacks on Jewish students. 'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' said Velchik, a Harvard alumnus. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.' Burroughs pushed back, questioning how the government could make 'ad-hoc' decisions to cancel grants and do so without offering evidence that any of the research is antisemitic. At one point, she called the government's assertions 'mind-boggling.' 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,' she said. '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's lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands from a federal antisemitism task force in April. A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's suit. The task force's demands included sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, Harvard was told 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. Harvard President Alan Garber says the university has made changes to combat 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.' Monday's hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing. Several dozen alumni from Harvard joined students and faculty to decry the effort to cut the federal funds, holding up signs reading 'Hands Off Harvard,' 'Strong USA Needs Strong Harvard' and 'Our Liberty Is Not For Sale.' Anurima Bhargava, who wrote the amicus brief on behalf of more than 12,000 fellow Harvard alumni in the case, said the graduates spoke up because 'they understand what is at stake here and what the end goal of the government is, to take away our ability to pursue the mission, the freedom and the values that have been the cornerstone of higher education.' Three Harvard researchers who lost their federal funding spoke about disruptions to the long-term impact of funding on cancer, cardiovascular diseases and other health conditions. They said the cuts could force researchers to go overseas to work. 'Unfortunately, the termination of this research work would mean the end of this progress and the implications are serious for the well-being of Americans and our children into the future,' said Walter Willett, a Harvard professor of epidemiology and nutrition who lost grants that funded long-term studies of men's and women's health. 'This is just one example of the arbitrary and capricious weaponization of taxpayer money that is undermining the health of Americans,' he said. The same day Harvard rejected the government's demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon 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 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 $53 billion, 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 and argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Finally, 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.' After Monday's hearing, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to attack Burroughs, calling her a 'TOTAL DISASTER.' Burroughs was appointed by former President Barack Obama. 'Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,' he wrote. 'Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer.' Casey writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Harvard takes on the Trump administration in federal court
Harvard University was back in court Monday for a hearing in its funding fight case against the Trump administration, a key step in a battle over restoring more than $2 billion in federal funding for research frozen by the White House this spring. 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.
