Judge questions legality of Trump administration's US$2 billion Harvard fund freeze
the legality of the Trump administration's termination of more than US$2 billion in federal research funding for Harvard University over alleged institutional failures including antisemitism on campus.
In a hearing on July 21, US Judge Allison Burroughs raised questions about the constitutionality of the government's decision to slash the funding and called some of their arguments in defense of the move 'mind boggling.' She pushed back in particular on the administration's claims that the funding cuts were justified by Harvard's failure to tackle antisemitism.
'There are limits to what you can terminate, and why, and how,' Ms Burroughs said to Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik during the hearing. 'It seems to be your idea that you can terminate a contract even if the basis for termination is a constitutional violation.'
President Donald Trump has
made Harvard the main target of his effort to force universities to reshape higher education by cracking down on alleged antisemitism, removing perceived political bias among the faculty and eliminating diversity programs. Harvard's lawsuit alleges Mr Trump's move violates the First Amendment right to free speech.
The Trump administration announced earlier this year that it was scrutinising billions in federal grants and contracts to Harvard. The government has also threatened Harvard's tax-exempt status and tried to prevent international students from enrolling.
Mr Velchik said at the hearing that he attended Harvard and considered it to be the best place to get an education. But he repeatedly echoed Mr Trump's argument that the school 'exhibited a wanton disregard for antisemitism' during campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza.
'I am both Jewish and American so I hear what you are saying,' the judge said.
Top stories
Swipe. Select. Stay informed.
World US President Trump 'caught off guard' by Israel's strikes in Syria
World US not rushing trade deals ahead of August deadline, will talk with China, Bessent says
Opinion Singapore's vaping crisis lays bare the drug addiction nightmare for parents
Singapore LTA seeks tailored solutions to improve Bukit Panjang LRT's maintenance inspections
Multimedia 'It's very sad': She comforts loved ones turned away by inmates
Singapore Subsidies and grants for some 20,000 people miscalculated due to processing issue: MOH
Opinion Sumiko at 61: 7 facts about facial skin ageing, and skincare ingredients that actually work
Opinion With Shatec cutting back operations, what's next for the hospitality sector?
Both sides of the case have asked Ms Burroughs to issue final rulings in their favour without a trial, an action known as a summary judgment. The judge ended the hearing without ruling and said she had not yet made a decision on the release of the funds.
The hearing came about a month after Mr Trump said in a social media post that the administration was nearing a deal with Harvard.
'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,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement on July 21.
On a social media post on Truth Social on July 21, President Trump referred to Ms Burroughs as an 'Obama appointed Judge' and 'an automatic 'loss'' for the government's case, but vowed to immediately appeal any ruling against the administration.
'Harvard has US$52 billion dollars sitting in the bank, and yet they are anti-semitic, anti-christian, and anti-America,' Mr Trump said in a post. 'Much of this money comes from the USA, all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer.'
After the hearing, dozens of Harvard alumni and professors held a rally outside the courthouse in support of the university, chanting the school's 'Veritas' motto and slogans like 'Stand up, fight back!'
Mr John Quackenbush, chair of the biostatistics department at Harvard's TH Chan School of Public Health, said the funding freeze threatens not only his own research related to cancer and other diseases, but the work of his post-doc researchers, who he said are now being recruited by foreign institutions.
'The drain on the future of American research is something none of us should stand for,' he said.
During the hearing, Ms Burroughs heard arguments by lawyers for the university and a group of professors, who argued that the funding freeze was unlawful and unconstitutional.
US lawyers claim the Trump administration properly froze funding because Harvard failed to curb antisemitism on campus, particularly after the Israel-Hamas war erupted in October 2023. They said Mr Trump rescinded grants because Harvard no longer complied with Mr Trump's policy of combating antisemitism.
'Harvard should have read the fine print,' Mr Velchik said during the hearing, arguing that the government can terminate grants at any time if a university is not aligned with its priorities.
The school claims Mr Trump retaliated when it rejected government demands to control its governance, curriculum and the viewpoints of faculty and students.
'In some ways you're justifying the conduct on protecting Jews and upholding American values but on the other hand taking steps that are antithetical to those things,' Ms Burroughs said at the hearing.
Later, at the end of the hearing, the judge told Mr Velchik that she hoped nothing had been said that would appear to diminish anyone's concerns about antisemitism.
'This is obviously a very fraught and emotional topic,' she said. BLOOMBERG
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
2 hours ago
- Business Times
PNC taps Coinbase to create crypto trading offering for bank customers
[NEW YORK] PNC Bank is working with cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase to offer crypto trading to the bank's customers, the companies said on Tuesday (Jul 22), in a sign that crypto is moving towards becoming increasingly interconnected to mainstream finance. PNC will use Coinbase's institutional 'crypto-as-a-service' platform to develop an offering that will allow PNC clients to buy, hold and sell cryptocurrencies. The Pittsburgh-based financial institution will also offer certain banking services to Coinbase. The PNC-Coinbase partnership is a stark shift for the banking sector, which crypto companies at one point had accused of being hostile to their industry. Lawmakers earlier this year held a hearing to scrutinise US banks and their regulators in response to claims they deny services to particular industries. Republicans and Democrats agreed that banks may be improperly denying services to some clients, but disagreed on the root cause. The banking industry has fiercely resisted accusations that it denies services based on ideological reasons. It has instead argued that onerous, outdated and opaque rules make it difficult for banks to sometimes provide services, or explain why they cannot. The partnership announcement comes as US President Donald Trump and his administration have embraced cryptocurrencies and enacted industry-friendly policies. Trump signed a law on Friday to create a regulatory regime for US dollar-pegged cryptocurrencies known as stablecoins, a major milestone for the digital asset sector, which has long lobbied for such a framework. Several banks, including Bank of America and Citibank, have said that they are exploring issuing their own stablecoins. 'Partnering with Coinbase accelerates our ability to bring innovative, crypto financial solutions to our clients,' William Demchak, PNC CEO, said. 'This collaboration enables us to meet growing demand for secure and streamlined access to digital assets on PNC's trusted platform.' REUTERS
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
Trump piles up trade deals as Asian countries, under tariff threats, agree to open up to American goods
Find out what's new on ST website and app. US President Donald Trump with Japanese PM Shigeru Ishiba outside the West Wing of the White House in Washington, DC, on Feb 7. AUSTIN – It's no easy feat to catch Washington's formidable trade lobbies and relentless, scoop-hungry journalists off guard. Yet on July 22, US President Donald Trump managed to do exactly that. On a day when experts and analysts were poised to dissect a potential deal with the Philippines, awaited after President Ferdinand Marcos Jr's visit to the White House, Mr Trump blindsided everyone by announcing a 'massive' deal with Japan. 'We just completed a massive deal with Japan, perhaps the largest deal ever made,' he said on his social media platform Truth Social. 'Japan will invest, at my direction, $550 billion dollars into the United States, which will receive 90 per cent of the profits. This deal will create hundreds of thousands of jobs - There has never been anything like it,' he added. US$550 billion is S$703 billion. Confirmed by Japan's chief negotiator Ryosei Akazawa, the deal slashes US tariffs on imports from Asia's second-largest economy to 15 per cent, well below the 25 per cent threat that loomed after the July 9 tariff pause ended. Japan will also accede to a key White House demand and open its market to American cars, trucks, rice and certain other agricultural products. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore S'pore's domestic recycling rate drops to all time low of 11% Singapore HDB launches 10,209 BTO and balance flats, as priority scheme for singles kicks in Singapore Youth Courts will take a new approach to cases, focused on underlying issues and supporting needs Life The Projector will resume daily screenings at Golden Mile Tower. Is its Cineleisure exit next? Singapore Ex-Tanjong Pagar United footballer charged with assault after Jurong East Stadium match Business Singapore's digital banks finding their niche in areas like SMEs as they narrow losses in 2024 Asia Japan Prime Minister Ishiba to resign by August, Mainichi newspaper reports Life New Pokemon theme park to open in Japan in early 2026 In a win for Japan's powerful carmakers, their exports to the US will attract lower tariffs of 15 per cent from the current 25 per cent. The announcement stole the thunder from the Philippines deal, which had been previewed only hours earlier on Truth Social. Mr Trump said the Philippines exports to the US will be subject to a 19 per cent tariff - higher than the 17 per cent initially proposed in April but lower than the 20 per cent threatened earlier in July. In contrast, the Philippines will levy zero tariffs on US goods. Threaten steep tariffs to make others buy more and invest more On the same day, further details emerged on the July 16 agreement with Indonesia, South-east Asia's largest economy. Key provisions included the elimination of nearly all Indonesian tariffs on US goods and a 19 per cent US tariff on Indonesian exports, with certain goods containing content from 'nonmarket economies', read China, to be tariffed at 40 per cent. It was also agreed that Indonesia would provide critical minerals to the US and would purchase Boeing aircraft and American farm products. Such details are still missing from the first deal struck by the Trump administration with a South-east Asian nation, Vietnam, in early July. While negotiations are reportedly still underway, Mr Trump's July 2 Truth Social post revealed key terms of the Vietnam deal, including a 20 per cent tariff on Vietnamese imports to the US and a 40 per cent tariff on transshipped goods, in exchange for Hanoi's commitment to eliminate all tariffs on American exports. Within the span of a month, thus, the White House has unveiled deals not only with Asia's second-largest economy but also with three key Asean economies. For the Asian partners yet to strike deals, such as India and Singapore, these deals set a precedent and create pressure to negotiate similar terms to avoid punitive tariffs and maintain strong trade relations with the US. High-level talks between the US and South Korea talks are scheduled for July 25, with Seoul considering politically sensitive concessions, for example in agriculture and autos, to avert steep US tariffs, which currently stand at 25 per cent but have been postponed to Aug 1. As part of a broader US effort to reset global trade relationships, it would seem that Mr Trump's aggressive tariff strategy is delivering some visible results. All four deals share a common goal: opening markets to American goods to cut trade deficits and support domestic industries. Two other trends are also clear: Mr Trump's steep tariff threats have been effective, and despite falling short of the promised 90 deals in 90 days, analysts are noting a surprising surge in agreements. 'I was very surprised to hear this deal announced today,' Dr William Chou, the deputy director of Hudson Institute's Japan Chair, told The Straits Times. The US$550 billion on top of Japan's current US$860 billion foreign direct investment in the US would make Japan the top investor in the US, head and shoulders above any other country, he noted. Will there be purchase, investment agreements in deal with China? The deals with Asian partners have also attracted the notice of those monitoring US-China trade. 'There was a lot of attention on what would come out of these deals, especially (with) Vietnam, on transshipment and rules of origin. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details and we don't have any details,' said a source who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he advises American companies engaged in business with China. But the Japan agreement signals that the US is expecting purchase agreements in trade deals and that has high significance for a highly anticipated visit to China by Mr Trump, he added. During a press conference alongside Mr Marcos, Mr Trump hinted at a visit to China 'not too far into the future' to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping. But no firm date has been set yet and Chinese imports could be subject to tariffs higher than 50 per cent unless new agreements are reached. 'Many of us are wondering if there will be a focus on purchase agreements similar to phase one trade deal with China in Trump's first term.' The huge investment component in the Japan deal has also sparked the idea that a deal with Beijing might involve large investment commitments from China. 'President Trump in the Oval Office has welcomed Chinese investment in the US. This is obviously in contrast to the hawks in his administration and in Congress, but Trump is ultimately the one that determines China policy,' said the source. However, Dr Chou said a direct geopolitical implication of the flurry of trade deals - with Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and likely soon South Korea - is expected to be for China. He said it meant that China can no longer use trade as a wedge issue between the US and Indo-Pacific countries. 'Given the White House's desire to negotiate a good deal with China - and in the wake of China's use of rare earths as economic coercion in the past few months - these trade deals by the White House strengthen Washington's negotiation position with Beijing,' Dr Chou noted. 'I think the administration's demonstration of its priorities, the 10 per cent baseline and long-term frameworks for balanced trade, have become increasingly clear to trading partners,' he said. 'Combined with Trump's willingness to live with tariffs, and the news of customs duties of US$27 billion last month, it provided impetus for trading partners to strike a trade deal,' he added. Customs duties fetched about US$27 billion in June, three times higher than in the same month of 2024, after Mr Trump levied across-the-board 10 per cent tariffs on imports in April on top of other selective duties. On an annual basis, tariff collections have totaled US$113 billion, rise of 86 per cent over last year. Minimising imports doesn't augur well for any economy Less impressed was Mr Frank Lavin, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, a veteran trade negotiator and former ambassador to Singapore. 'It is hard to fully understand Trump's ultimate goals because at times he talks about the trade balance, at times he talks about reciprocity of tariff rates, at times he talks about re-shoring American manufacturing, and at times he talks about increasing tariff revenue to the US Government,' Mr Lavin said. 'There are any number of contradictions among those four goals,' he said. For instance, if the goal of high tariffs is to boost US manufacturing by disincentivising imports, tariff revenues will fall in tandem with declining imports. It seems that his over-riding goal is a form of mercantilism, attaining greater market access for US firms, and reducing market access to foreign firms. 'It is not clear how this will help the US economy,' he said. Economists believe that maximising exports while minimising imports in an interconnected global marketplace does not augur well for any economy, regardless of its size. Such policies risk economic inefficiency, trade wars and shortchange consumers.
Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
US Olympic officials bar transgender women from women's competitions
US President Donald Trump invites young female athletes as he signs No Men in Women's Sports Executive Order on Feb 5. NEW YORK – The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee (USOPC) quietly changed its eligibility rules on July 21 to bar transgender women from competing in Olympic women's sports, and now will comply with President Donald Trump's executive order on the issue. The new policy, expressed in a short, vaguely worded paragraph, is tucked under the category of 'USOPC Athlete Safety Policy' on the site, and does not include details of how the ban will work. Nor does the new policy include the word 'transgender' or the title of Trump's executive order, 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports', referring to it instead as 'Executive Order 14201'. The committee's new policy means that the national governing bodies of sports federations in the United States now must follow the USOPC's lead, according to several chief executives of sports within the Olympic movement. Those national governing bodies oversee many, but not all, events in Olympic sports for all ages, from youth to masters' competitions. In a letter sent by email to the 'Team USA Community', the committee acknowledged on July 22 that its policy had changed. The letter, from Sarah Hirshland, the USOPC's CEO, and Gene Sykes, the president, said the committee had held 'a series of respectful and constructive conversations with federal officials' since the executive order was signed. 'As a federally chartered organization, we have an obligation to comply with federal expectations,' the letter said, adding that the committee would work with the national governing bodies to implement the new policy. USA Fencing was among the first of the national governing bodies to post a new policy for transgender athletes. Its new policy will take effect on Aug 1. Those new rules still allow transgender women to compete, but only in the men's category. The rule changes come after the sport was thrust into an uncomfortable spotlight this year when a female fencer declined to compete against her transgender opponent at a midlevel meet. The moment went viral and led to a congressional hearing about transgender women competing in women's sports. 'I'm not going to try to oppose the USOPC because I understand that they've been put in an impossible situation by the administration,' said Phil Andrews, CEO of USA Fencing. 'We essentially have no choice but to change the rules because once the USOPC says, 'This is now the policy of all of our NGBs', we all have to follow it.' Andrews added that it was unclear how the new policy would play out in states such as Minnesota and California, which are defying Mr Trump's ban on transgender women competing in the women's category. How the entire policy will unfold, from sport to sport, and state to state, is uncertain, too. Some sports could add an 'open' category, available to anyone, or a mixed gender category to accommodate the change, Andrews said. The USOPC was spare in its explanation. Its new policy said that it was 'committed to protecting opportunities for athletes participating in sport', and that it would work with the International Olympic Committee, the International Paralympic Committee and the national governing bodies of every Olympic sport 'to ensure that women have a fair and safe competition environment consistent with Executive Order 14201'. Before the new 'Athlete Safety' policy was posted, the committee had stayed away from taking a bold stance on the issue of transgender women competing in the women's division, trying to carefully navigate the politics of the matter as the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles inched closer. Instead, it had delegated decisions about transgender athlete eligibility to the national governing bodies of each sport. The USOPC has 54 member organizations, according to its website. The IOC, meanwhile, has been struggling for years with the issue of transgender and intersex athletes in sports, coming up with various rules at various times, in an effort to balance fairness with inclusivity. Its current policy allows each international sports federation – World Athletics or the International Cycling Federation, for example – to determine if, and how, transgender athletes can compete in sanctioned events at the international level. But several leaders in the Olympic movement said on July 22 that they were expecting the IOC's rules for transgender athletes to change now that the organization had a new leader, Kirsty Coventry. During her campaign for president, Coventry had pledged to protect women in sports, and that included possibly barring transgender women from competing in the women's category. NYTIMES
