What's really behind Harvard's clash with the US government over federal funds?
Harvard University is currently embroiled in a legal battle with the US government over the freezing of nearly $3 billion in federal funding. The dispute centers on allegations made by the Trump administration and the University's response through a federal lawsuit.
The courtroom hearing, taking place in Boston's Seaport District, represents a key moment in the case. The proceedings involve oral arguments over whether Harvard can recover federal research funds that were withheld following the administration's imposition of specific conditions tied to hiring, admissions, and oversight.
Background of the lawsuit and key issues at stake
The legal conflict began in April when the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard President Alan M.
Garber outlining conditions for continued federal support. These included structural reforms to increase 'viewpoint diversity' and audits of various academic units, as reported by The Harvard Crimson. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit arguing that the administration's demands violated the First Amendment and bypassed formal legal procedures for terminating federal funding.
Following the University's legal challenge, the administration halted more than $2 billion in federal grants.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
What Happens When You Massage Baking Soda Into Your Scalp
Lintmit.com
Read More
Undo
According to The Harvard Crimson, the government escalated further by adding hundreds of millions in additional cuts and warning that Harvard would no longer receive future grants.
Federal agencies involved and legal grounds cited
Eleven federal agencies are named as defendants, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense. Harvard argues that the Trump administration's funding freeze violated the First Amendment by attaching viewpoint-based conditions to funding.
The University also cited the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, stating that the government failed to follow the necessary steps before terminating grants.
Title VI typically requires a hearing, two formal notices, a 30-day pause, and a failed attempt at voluntary compliance. Harvard contends that none of these steps were followed before the April funding freeze.
Key Information
Details
Amount frozen
Over $2.2 billion
Total funds at stake
Nearly $3 billion
Agencies involved
11 (including NSF, DOD, HHS)
Legal claims
First Amendment, APA, Title VI
Judge
Allison D. Burroughs
Court location
Boston, Massachusetts
Allegations of antisemitism and racial bias
According to the Trump administration, the cuts were prompted by Harvard's alleged failure to adequately address antisemitism and racial discrimination against white students.
As reported by The Harvard Crimson, several federal agencies referenced findings from a task force on antisemitism, which described incidents of social isolation and discrimination faced by Jewish and Israeli students.
Harvard, however, maintains that it has implemented significant measures, including the formalization of protest policies and expanded academic programs on Jewish and Israeli history. In a court filing cited by The Harvard Crimson, the University said the 2,000-page administrative record submitted by the government failed to show a proper investigation into antisemitism on campus.
Ongoing impact and future implications
The funding cuts have already disrupted research at Harvard, halting projects in cancer and rare disease treatment and prompting layoffs and hiring freezes. According to The Harvard Crimson, the University requested a summary judgment in early June to resolve the case before the federal government's September 3 deadline for fulfilling financial obligations related to canceled grants.
The Trump administration has argued that the case belongs in the Court of Federal Claims, which could delay a final ruling. Meanwhile, discussions between Harvard and the White House have not resulted in a settlement.
Judge Allison D. Burroughs is presiding over the case. Though a final ruling is not expected immediately, the court's decision will have significant implications for the University and federal oversight of higher education.
TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us
here
.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
19 minutes ago
- The Hindu
‘Civil society globally did a fantastic job in supporting Gaza; but governments in West are evil'
After his two-storey house in Gaza was bombed in October 2023, allegedly by Israeli forces, Palestinian human rights lawyer Raji Sourani remains committed to returning to the war-torn strip; one of his first priorities, he says. In an exclusive interview, Mr. Sourani, who founded the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) in 1995, shares the current scenario of his and his organisation's efforts to prosecute Israel for 'genocide' at the International Court of Justice. Mr. Sournai, who is currently in Cairo, Egypt, expressed severe disappointment with Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court (ICC), adding that Mr. Khan had 'failed' the people of Gaza. It is to note that, since 2015, Sourani has led the Palestinian legal team representing victims at the ICC. In a conversation with Al-Jazeera in April 2024, it was mentioned that you and a team of lawyers from the PCHR were working on prosecuting Israel for 'genocide' at the ICJ. Where does this stand in the present-day? The ICJ, as you know, is a court for the states. Since January 2015, we have been trying our best and have invested in making a case move at the ICC. But, there was an incredible amount of political pressure from the U.S., especially from the then Donald Trump-led administration. Penalties were warned on anyone who would try to bring the U.S. or Israel to the ICC, at any political level. This lasted till March 2021, when the ICC chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, decided to open an investigation. However, when Karim Khan took over as the new chief prosecutor of the ICC, he did not move anywhere. If I may interrupt, can you elaborate on why things did not move after Karim Khan took over? We do not know, but he was talking about restructuring the court, and the investigation into Palestine and budget deficits, among others. His priorities were very confusing to us, and he refused to meet us, even in principle, for a long period of time. When the October 7, 2023, attacks took place in Israel, we tried to meet Khan on numerous occasions. He already had the decision made by Fatou Bensouda to go ahead with the investigation. All Khan had to do was to ensure the investigation went ahead, but he did not do that. He continued to refuse a meeting with us, including with his investigative team. That is when we decided to think of the ICJ, and to open the dialogue channels with Ireland and South Africa, and the latter was open to the idea. We were lucky that South Africa…took over the case at the ICJ and challenged Israel while accusing the latter of the most serious crime of genocide. Coming back to Karim Khan, there has been recent news that he was reportedly warned to be 'destroyed', along with the ICC, if the arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant were not withdrawn. As a human rights lawyer, how do you perceive this? Despite the first Trump-led administration deciding that it would sanction anyone who tried to demand accountability [from the U.S. or Israel], Bensouda was incredibly courageous to challenge that. She formed the investigative body and had a meeting with us, and the investigation was simply supposed to proceed. We have documented war crimes dating back to 2014 – including crimes against humanity and persecution. However, after Khan took over, he refused to meet. It is very strange that a prosecutor, and his team, who cannot visit the place [Gaza], had no interest in meeting the lawyers who had documentation of the situation. Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine erupted. Soon after, he opened an office in Kyiv and began the investigation in Ukraine with 37 investigators. But, he did not move with respect to our file. We warned them [Khan and his team] after the October 7th attacks that there is obvious evidence of plans to carry out a genocide in Gaza. Still, they did not want to meet or listen. Only after making the case at the ICJ did Khan ask to meet us, and we were reluctant. I told Khan that he was partly responsible for the blood, pain and suffering of Gaza, after October 7th. Maybe if Khan had held any Israelis accountable, according to the files he had, then they [Israel] would not have thought of doing genocide. He promised to move forward, but only after he went to Israel and met the Israeli victims… Later, he delivered the arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, but is that enough? These warrants are related to starvation and food, and not to genocide. Do you feel that Karim has failed you [and the people of Gaza]? Definitely. By waiting two years after taking over [to initiate action], he failed us… I do not want more than what he did for Ukraine. In one year, he had a warrant against Putin. I am damn sure that if Israel had been informed that they could be held accountable, they would have thought many times before doing what they are doing now… This is the most well-documented conflict in history, this is a genocide that was broadcast and live-streamed, and the world has been watching it? Speaking of war crimes, do you feel that the world and the media has turned its back on Gaza? I think the civil society, globally, did a fantastic job on [supporting] Gaza. I am very proud that the crème-de-la-crème of American universities and the generation of tomorrow stood fair, and they tried their best to voice the voiceless. They were able to speak truth to power. This includes people in London, Tokyo, Delhi and Paris, among others. It is obvious, the solidarity and support for Palestine. Our problem is not with the people…but the government's, in the U.S. and Europe, are evil. How can they support a criminal, belligerent occupation, and call a genocide a right to self-defence? I am appalled, the behaviour is selective. I also noticed that you were no longer based in Gaza, a place that you were not willing to leave at any cost. What made you leave Gaza? I did not leave Gaza willingly, my house was bombed. I have been a lawyer for the last 43 years, and one of my missions is to document these war crimes. I was checking whether the targeting against me was deliberate or not. My colleagues and I concluded that yes, this was deliberate. I was advised by my friends from across the world not to stay a minute longer in Gaza, because they believed that targeting was deliberate. They said that nobody will make use of you if you are dead. On the other hand, my wife and son refused to separate from me and leave for Egypt. At that time, it was 'mission impossible' to leave Gaza. But some friends intervened and got me out of there. For the first time, I feel that I am not in the right place [because I am away from Gaza]. You did mention that you had proper documentation of the alleged war crimes. Can you walk us through the testimonies of the victims, which you have gathered? We have had a real dilemma since the latest war broke out, because we never used to document anything partly. I can assure you that whether it's in 2008, 2009, 2012, 2014, 2017 and more, we have documented every war crime – crimes against humanity, persecution – in full. But, in this war, it was 'mission impossible' to document everything. Firstly, it was extremely dangerous, so I asked everyone in my team to stay home. We decided to do selective documentation, what that means is that we had to be selective in how many places we could cover. But wherever we covered, we did it in full. We documented attacks against shelters, UNRWA schools and hundreds of people have been killed, among many other war crimes. We have major samples on every type of crime that was committed. Do you ever plan to return to Gaza, given that there is an alleged threat to your life? Definitely, that is the first thing on my agenda. I am a deep-rooted Gazan, my family has lived in Gaza for the last seven centuries. I chose to be in Gaza, even when I was offered work in places across the world. I know that Gaza is not the most beautiful place in the world, but that is where I belong and feel my humanity. And there is a cause and case that I am working for. I have a team in Gaza, 45 of them, they continue to document starvation, bombings, killings and displacement. We have lost three of our staff members so far, and many of our staff members have also lost their family members… Not a for second will I comprise on returning to Gaza, no matter what the price will be.
India.com
19 minutes ago
- India.com
Trump Cozying Up To Pakistan – Will It Push India Closer To China?
New Delhi: A meeting in Washington last month between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Pakistan Field Marshal Asim Munir sparked concern in New Delhi. Just days earlier, a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam, South Kashmir, had killed 26 innocent civilians. India blamed Pakistan after a group linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba claimed responsibility. Foreign policy watchers are now weighing a critical question: could this renewed U.S.-Pakistan engagement unsettle India's fragile equation with China? For years, Beijing has served as the strategic common threat binding India and the United States. Both nations view China as a geopolitical rival and have steadily expanded cooperation to counter its influence. But Trump's warm overtures toward China-backed Pakistan are forcing India to rethink its calculus. Diplomatic experts say India is unlikely to pivot dramatically toward China based solely on the Trump-Munir meeting. Moves to de-escalate tensions with Beijing had already been set in motion months earlier. Still, the symbolism of the meeting and its implications for India's long-term strategy are difficult to ignore. Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington D.C., said the meeting must be viewed in light of recent India-Pakistan military flare-ups during Operation Sindoor. 'It is not that India is suddenly leaning toward China because of Trump's outreach to Pakistan. But the context matters, especially given that Pakistan used Chinese weapons against India for the first time during that conflict,' he explained. He added that uncertainty around U.S.-India ties under Trump remains a major concern in New Delhi. 'There is no clear indication of how Trump plans to deal with China. At times, he talks tough, at others, he calls for cooperation. India is wary of assuming that the United States will always align with its strategic interests on China.' That ambiguity, Kugelman said, is one reason India has begun hedging its bets by stabilising ties with Beijing. A Subtle Thaw Between India and China Since October 2024, signs of a diplomatic thaw have emerged. Border troops from both sides have started withdrawing from several flashpoints along the disputed Line of Actual Control (LAC). Earlier this month, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar met Chinese President Xi Jinping during the SCO foreign ministers' summit, marking his first visit to Beijing in six years. Direct commercial flights between India and China are set to resume. The long-suspended Kailash Mansarovar Yatra has reopened for Indian pilgrims. In a move with economic implications, the government think tank NITI Aayog has proposed allowing up to 24% Chinese equity in Indian companies without special clearance. Foreign policy commentator Indrani Bagchi believes India is proceeding cautiously. 'The government is trying to introduce a degree of stability into its relationship with China. We may see some Chinese investment flowing in, but it's unlikely to go much beyond that,' she said. She also warned against overreacting to Trump's overtures to Pakistan. 'This is not the first time Washington has leaned toward Islamabad. Whenever it does, the trust factor in U.S.-India ties takes a hit. If the United States resumes military aid to Pakistan, it will definitely raise red flags in New Delhi,' she added. At the same time, she noted, India has been attempting to diversify its defense partnerships, gradually reducing dependence on Russia and increasing procurement from the United States. 'If America is using Pakistan as a bridge to reach China, India will be forced to reassess,' she added. What Is Beijing's Game? Some former diplomats argue that if India extends a hand, China will likely respond with caution but openness. Achal Malhotra, a former ambassador, said New Delhi's foreign policy is guided by realism, not alignment. 'Our relations with China stand on their own merit. We are prudent but sovereign in our choices. The United States knows this. Trump's meeting with Munir likely reflects Pakistan's geographic utility in Afghanistan and Central Asia. Unless that directly threatens India, it is not an alarming development,' he said. Strategic analyst Zakir Hussain suggested it is U.S. inconsistency that might be nudging India toward China. 'The way Washington handles its ties with India is part of the reason New Delhi may explore a less confrontational path with Beijing. Economically, some of India's moves may lower tensions. But let us be clear that China will never abandon Pakistan for India,' he said.
Time of India
31 minutes ago
- Time of India
India, UK unveil road map to boost defence, tech, energy ties
India, UK unveil road map to boost defence, tech, energy ties Prime Minister Narendra Modi strongly raised issues like the need to shun double standards on terrorism, presence of Indian economic offenders in the UK and Khalistan extremism in his meeting with counterpart Keir Starmer, saying those who use democratic freedom to undermine democracy must be held accountable. Thanking Starmer for his strong condemnation of the Pahalgam terrorist attack, Modi said that the two leaders were united in their view that there can be no place for double standards in the fight against terrorism. Modi also said that Indian and British agencies would work together for the extradition of economic offenders, in what was seen as a clear message to fugitives such as Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi and Sanjay Bhandari that government intends to get them back to face legal action in the country. Although government has got assistance, Mallya and Nirav Modi have been seeking to prolong their stay in the UK by using multiple forums for appeal. While the formalisation of India-UK free trade agreement was the highlight of Modi's visit to the UK, another significant takeaway was the launch of a Vision 2035 roadmap for boosting ties in areas like defence, technology, education, clean energy and people-to-people contacts. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The leaders adopted a blueprint for defence industrial cooperation to promote, as the Indian government said, collaboration in co-design, co-development and co-production of defence products to meet the growing demand in both countries as well as for the world market. On the issue of Khalistan extremism, which he was expected to raise with Starmer, Modi said there was agreement between India and the UK that forces with extremist ideologies must not be allowed to misuse democratic freedoms. "Those who misuse democratic freedoms to undermine democracy itself must be held to account," said the PM, in his joint press statement with the UK PM. "On the matter of extradition of economic offenders as well, our agencies will continue to work together in close coordination and cooperation," added Modi, who sought the UK's cooperation in bringing the fugitives to justice. India and the UK also reached an agreement between the CBI and the UK's National Crime Agency to jointly fight organised crime. Foreign secretary Vikram Misri said that the leaders committed to strengthen the global fight against terrorism. "While noting that extremism and radicalisation pose threat to both societies, they agreed to further enhance bilateral cooperation to deal with the menace," said the official. Modi said that Vision 2035 will serve as a roadmap for a strong, trusted, and ambitious partnership in the areas of technology, defence, climate, education, and people-to-people connectivity. "It is our commitment that, from AI to critical minerals, semiconductors to cyber security, we shall create the future together," he said, while inviting Starmer to visit India soon. Starmer accepted the invitation. Amid concerns over the erratic US trade policies, both sides also sought to promote a fair, non-discriminatory and inclusive trading system. According to the roadmap, India and the UK reaffirmed their shared commitment to a rules-based international order and to strengthening multilateralism through meaningful reform. Importantly for India, the roadmap focuses on reform of the United Nations, including the security council, and other multilateral institutions such as the Commonwealth, WTO, WHO, IMF, and the World Bank, ensuring these bodies "reflect contemporary global realities and are equipped to address emerging challenges".
