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.”
Read more on Los Angeles Times
