Harvard is hoping court rules Trump administration's $2.6B research cuts were illegal
Harvard University will appear in federal court Monday to make the case that the Trump administration illegally cut $2.6 billion from the storied college — a pivotal moment in its
battle against the federal government
.
If U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs decides in the university's favor, the ruling would reverse a series of funding freezes that later became outright cuts as the Trump administration
escalated its fight
with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. Such a ruling, if it stands, 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.'
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.
Harvard's lawsuit accuses President Donald Trump's administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal antisemitism task force.
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.
Harvard President Alan Garber 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 $2.2 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 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 $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, 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.
The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the federal 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.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House restricts WSJ access to Trump over Epstein story
The White House on Monday barred The Wall Street Journal from traveling with US President Donald Trump during his upcoming visit to Scotland, after the newspaper reported that he wrote a bawdy birthday message to his former friend, alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. The move comes after Trump on Friday sued the WSJ and its media magnate owner Rupert Murdoch for at least $10 billion over the allegation in the article, which Trump denies. The Trump administration's handling of the Epstein case has threatened to split the Republican's far-right Make America Great Again (MAGA) base, with some of his supporters calling for a full release of the so-called "Epstein Files." The punishment of the Wall Street Journal marks at least the second time the Trump administration has moved to exclude a major news outlet from the press pool over its reporting, having barred Associated Press journalists from multiple key events since February. "As the appeals court confirmed, The Wall Street Journal or any other news outlet are not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in his private workspaces," said Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. "Due to The Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the thirteen outlets on board (Air Force One)." Trump departs this weekend for Scotland, where he owns two golf resorts and will meet with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice, under Trump-appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi, said there was no evidence suggesting disgraced financier Epstein had kept a "client list" or was blackmailing powerful figures before his death in 2019. In its story on Thursday, the WSJ reported that Trump had written a suggestive birthday letter to Epstein in 2003, illustrated with a naked woman and alluding to a shared "secret." Epstein, a longtime friend of Trump and multiple other high-profile men, was found hanging dead in a New York prison cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges that he sexually exploited dozens of underage girls at his homes in New York and Florida. The case sparked conspiracy theories, especially among Trump's far-right voters, about an alleged international cabal of wealthy pedophiles. Epstein's death -- declared a suicide -- before he could face trial supercharged that narrative. Since returning to power in January, Trump has moved to increase control over the press covering the White House. In February, the Oval Office stripped the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) of its nearly century-old authority to oversee which outlets have access to certain restricted presidential events, with Trump saying that he was now "calling the shots" on media access. In a statement, the WHCA president urged the White House to "restore" the Journal to the pool. "This attempt by the White House to punish a media outlet whose coverage it does not like is deeply troubling, and it defies the First Amendment," said WHCA President Weijia Jiang. "Government retaliation against news outlets based on the content of their reporting should concern all who value free speech and an independent media." aha/ksb
Axios
23 minutes ago
- Axios
Thune stuck between Trump's demands, members' recess plans
Senate Majority Leader John Thune is stuck between the public, painful demands from President Trump to cancel the August recess and the pleas of members to let them go home. Why it matters: For senators, the summer recess is next to holy. For the president, confirming his nominees is simply more important. "We're thinking about it," Thune told Axios on Monday about Trump's call to cancel all — or part — of the August break. "We want to get as many noms through the pipeline as we can," he said. But still, August is August. "People are accustomed to going back," Thune said. "This is the time of year when they go back and interact with their constituents and talk about some of the things that we've gotten done." "I do not believe we need to cancel the August recess," Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( said Monday. "Please wipe that suggestion off of your DNA." Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) vehemently defended the extended break: "You get us for the rest of the year back here, but there's got to be some time when we can actually be addressing the needs of our constituents back home." Driving the news: After Trump's weekend post on Truth Social, leadership has made clear to senators that fiddling with the August recess is on the table. Thune has talked to Trump about the president's goals and told reporters he met with the president on Monday. The intrigue: If Thune moves forward with August votes, there is always the risk of attendance challenges. The Senate requires a minimum of 51 senators for a quorum— and it only takes one Democrat to force a quorum call. With just a three-seat margin, Republicans are "only as strong as our four weakest links," as one senior aide put it. What we're hearing: The Senate is buzzing about what Thune will do, according to conversations with senators and staffers. Senators are likely to put on a brave face and say publicly that they are willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish Trump's agenda. But trust us, both sides want to go home. It's more than a vacation from D.C.: Many pack their schedules with official international travel and fundraisers. They also know they need to sell Trump's "big, beautiful bill" to constituents who aren't convinced of its merits. Zoom in: The Senate's schedule has already been relatively brutal — fewer and shorter recess weeks than usual, late-night votes, occasional working Fridays, four all-nighter vote-a-ramas, and 94 confirmed administration officials. With Republicans relying on party-line votes to move forward, Democrats' only leverage has been to make progress as miserable as possible. Trump is "the first president in history that hasn't had a nom adopted by this point in his presidency either by unanimous consent or voice — not a single one," Thune told reporters on Monday. What we're watching: A threat of canceling August recess could also be a negotiation tool to convince Democrats to give them a break on lower-level nominees who ordinarily would have an easier time getting confirmed.
Axios
23 minutes ago
- Axios
"I hate it": Redistricting arms race gives lawmakers heartburn
House members are watching with growing discomfort as Democrats in California and other blue states consider joining Texas Republicans in pursuing mid-decade redistricting to gain an advantage in the 2026 midterms. Why it matters: It threatens, as one Democratic lawmaker put it, a "race to the bottom" that will encourage both sides to test the limits of gerrymandering and further fan the partisan flames engulfing the country. But with President Trump bearing down on Texas Republicans to change their maps and California Democrats wanting to respond in political self-defense, members of both parties feel they have little choice. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) told Axios of his state's possible redistricting: "How I feel is terribly conflicted. I hate it. I really worry about a race to the bottom on something that I consider pretty despicable." "But I understand why the governor and others are considering it. The only reason it would even be possible is what Texas and others are doing just stinks so badly that it's pissing people in California off." State of play: Texas Republicans began a special session Monday, which Gov. Greg Abbott said would include an attempt to redraw the state's U.S. House districts. Redistricting is normally only done after the decennial census — most recently in 2020 — or in response to a court order. However, Trump has put pressure on Republicans to undertake the unusual effort in the hopes of creating as many as five new GOP-leaning seats. Republicans in Ohio are also looking to redraw districts to try to unseat several Democrats. In response, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, has threatened to try to revisit his state's districts to create more Democratic-leaning seats. What we're hearing: Democrats may not stop at California, and are eyeing other blue states, including New York, New Jersey, Minnesota and Washington, senior House Democrats told Axios. Democrats are "definitely looking into what's going on and trying to level the playing field," said one House Democrat. "It's crazy what's happening in Texas." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters Thursday: "It's all options on the table at this moment." Even though California has a constitutionally mandated independent redistricting commission, several House Democrats from the state told Axios they are confident Newsom could find a legal pathway. What they're saying: While lawmakers have largely stuck by their parties' plans as a necessary evil in an increasingly existential political environment, others expressed trepidation at the escalating brinksmanship. "We're only supposed to be redistricting every 10 years," said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.). "At some point, the partisanship gets too much. ... I just think it goes too far." A House Democrat from California, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Axios: "It's a difficult conversation, because we're literally doing it to gerrymander — everything that we stood against, and the reason we created the independent redistricting commission." "If we do it," the lawmaker added, "let's be very upfront and transparent about it. Don't leave it to an independent commission. Everybody knows what we're doing." Yes, but: Other relative moderates in both parties said they are more than comfortable with mid-decade redistricting, pointing to the other side's actions as justification. "It's not only Texas," Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), whose own seat could be threatened by the redistricting plan, said, noting Newsom's comments. Gonzales added that Trump is a "political genius" and that "if we can pull off squeezing five more seats out of Texas, that's a game changer." Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) said if Republicans are "going to stoop to midterm redistricting to politically advantage the party, I think it's certainly something that should be on the table." The bottom line: Even Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), an arch-centrist who represents the reddest district of any House Democrat, declined to condemn potential redistricting in California — but he did warn Republicans against what is known as a dummymander.
