
Harvard, Trump battle for billions in federal funds as judge weighs next steps
Harvard sued the Trump administration in April over the funding freeze, which it described in its lawsuit as an unlawful and unconstitutional effort to assert federal "control" over elite academic institutions, according to a filing submitted to U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs.
The Trump administration, for its part, has accused Harvard of "fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus," and refusing to comply with demands from a federal antisemitism task force sent to the university earlier this year.
Both sides have asked Burroughs, an Obama appointee, to issue a summary judgment by early September, which could allow them to avoid a lengthy trial before the start of the new school year.
In court on Monday, Harvard lawyer Steven Lehotsky argued that the funding cuts are an illegal attempt by the Trump administration to coerce the university into complying with the administration's policies and violate the First Amendment and Title VI protections.
Lawyers for Harvard have argued that the Trump administration's actions amount to an unconstitutional "pressure campaign" to influence and exert control over its academic programs, which Lehotsky echoed on Monday.
He told Burroughs the funding freeze is an attempt by the Trump administration to control the "inner workings" of the university, and one he argued could cause lasting damage.
He pointed to earlier claims from Harvard that the administration "fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism."
"By accepting federal funds, Harvard agreed to abide by the provisions in Title VI and the relevant agencies' corresponding regulations," lawyers for the university said in filing the lawsuit earlier this year.
But Harvard's agreement, they said, does not constitute a "blank check for agencies to impose the government's recent, unrelated demands as a condition of continued funding."
Meanwhile, Michael Velchik, a lawyer for the Justice Department, countered that the administration has "every right" to cancel the funding, which they sought to frame as a mere contract issue and one that should be heard in a different court.
The Justice Department also reiterated that they see Harvard's actions as violating the administration's order combating antisemitism.
"Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that," Velchik said on Monday. "The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard."
President Donald Trump signaled dissatisfaction with the hearing on Monday – vowing on social media to appeal any ruling against the administration to a higher court.
He also took aim at Burroughs. "How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases?" he said on Truth Social, "When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN,"
Trump further took aim at Harvard, accusing the university of being "anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America," despite having "$52 billion" sitting in the bank.
"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," Trump said.
Burroughs ended Monday's hearing by saying she would take the case under advisement, and would issue a ruling after she had sufficient time to weigh the matters presented by the administration and the university.
She did not offer a timeframe for when she planned to rule on the matter.
Still, the judge appeared skeptical during the hearing of some Trump administration claims, including how it could make such wanton cuts to university funding.
At one point, Burroughs noted to Velchik that she had doubts about the government's so-called "ad hoc" decisions to cut billions in grant money without providing further evidence, documentation or procedure to "suss out" whether the university or its administrators had taken sufficient steps to combat antisemItism or comply with the guidance handed down by the Trump administration.
"The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering," she told Velchik at one point during the hearing.
"I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech."
Since Trump took office in January, the administration has targeted the university with investigations from six separate federal agencies.
It has also sought to ban Harvard's ability to host international students by attempting to revoke its certification status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) – a program led by the Department of Homeland Security that allows universities to sponsor international students for U.S. visas.
Burroughs in June issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from immediately revoking its SEVP credentials, siding with Harvard in ruling that the university would likely suffer "immediate and irreparable harm" if the action was enforced.
Harvard, meanwhile, has signaled no plans to stand down in its fight with the Trump administration.
"Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else," Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said in a radio interview earlier this summer discussing the administration's actions.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Barack Obama thinks adults shouldn't eat ketchup
The president's controversial stance on ketchup is sparking debate Barack Obama has stirred up an unexpectedly spirited debate over a beloved American condiment, and the reactions are as saucy as the subject itself. During a lighthearted episode of the Michelle Obama IMO podcast, co-hosted by the former First Lady and her brother Craig Robinson, Barack shared his long-standing—and rather unwavering—belief that ketchup is strictly for kids. 'In my opinion, and this is controversial in my family, but you should not eat ketchup after the age of 8,' he said, his tone firm despite the room's laughter. Michelle, clearly familiar with this culinary hill her husband is willing to die on, noted that the ketchup cut-off age seems to get younger every time he brings it up. 'Last time, I think it was 10,' she chuckled. Barack stood his ground, expanding on his perspective. 'I have nothing against kids having ketchup on burgers or fries—even ketchup on hot dogs, which is hard for me to watch—but at a certain point, you've gotta outgrow it,' he said. He conceded, 'I might be a little too draconian in my attitude,' but maintained that 'ketchup has its place.' Craig, ever the playful provocateur, called it like he saw it: 'It sounds like you're saying ketchup is childish.' Barack didn't disagree. 'When I see a grown person pouring a lot of ketchup on something—I told you this was controversial in my family,' he repeated, smiling at the familial pushback. Despite his condiment convictions, Michelle confirmed that the Obama household is far from ketchup-free. 'There's always ketchup in the house,' she said. 'Everyone uses it. Except him.'


CNN
11 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump Doesn't Rule Out Pardon For Ghislaine Maxwell - Laura Coates Live - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Trump Doesn't Rule Out Pardon For Ghislaine Maxwell Laura Coates Live 47 mins President Donald Trump denied again today that he was briefed on his name appearing in files tied to the Jeffrey Epstein case, despite reports by CNN and other outlets on the briefing. The administration remains dogged by public criticism over its handling of the case.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Murkowski: Trump administration funding freeze could result in ‘closing schools'
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) fears the Trump administration's multibillion-dollar education funding freeze could cause schools in her state to close as districts struggle to keep employees without the money. The administration originally froze a total of $6 billion in funding to schools, affecting after-school and summer programs, along with classes for adult and English learners. Last week, the president released about $1 billion that was aimed at after-school programs, but $5 billion is still held up. 'Many of our school districts have already made really hard decisions about closing schools,' Murkowski told ABC News. 'Both in Fairbanks and Anchorage, we've seen layoffs,' she continued. 'If your literacy skills are weak, if you're working on your English skills, I mean, these are all things that are keeping people out of the workforce at a time when we're trying to get people into it,' Murkowski added. 'So I am very worried.' She was one of nine Republicans to sign a letter to the Office of Management and Budget last week demanding the funding be released and rejecting the administration's claim the money is going toward 'woke' programs. The letter prompted the office to release the about $1 billion in funding for after-school and summer programming, prompting a sigh of relief for parents. But the rest of the money is still in limbo, with no timeline on when it will be given to schools. 'I'd like to see some of the other programs released, but, you know, we haven't heard one way or the other,' Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( who led the Republican letter, told ABC. While Murkowski is hesitant to say the money is cut, she stresses the funding needs to be released before the school year begins. 'I don't want to call it cuts yet, because my hope is that they're just unpaused and that they are going to materialize,' Murkowski told ABC News. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Solve the daily Crossword