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
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mass protest planned by 500 Palestine Action supporters in bid to get ban lifted
Supporters of Palestine Action are aiming to gather 500 people to take mass action in an attempt to overwhelm the criminal justice system and persuade authorities to lift the ban on the group. The action planned for August 9 in central London will see protesters holding signs that say: 'I Oppose Genocide, I Support Palestine Action' with 'non violent composure' for an hour or until they are arrested. A planning document has been posted online that says: 'Five hundred is more than double the total number of people arrested under the Terrorism Act in 2024. 'It would be practically and politically difficult for the state to respond to an action on this scale. 'Even assuming it had the physical capacity to arrest so many people on the same day, the political fallout from such an operation would be incalculable, causing irreparable damage to the reputation of the government and the police. We demand that you lift the ban on Palestine Action. Our government is actively involved in a genocide. The UK government is using anti-terror laws to silence people who are taking action against this genocide. Sign up at for a mass-action on August 9th. — Defend our Juries (@DefendourJuries) July 20, 2025 'Our assessment is that an action on this scale could be enough for the ban to be lifted. 'Charging and prosecuting at least 500 more people, in addition to the 200 people already arrested, is likely to be beyond the capacity of the state, given the current situation in the criminal justice system.' Palestine Action has been banned by the Government under terrorism laws, after it claimed an action which saw two Voyager planes damaged at RAF Brize Norton on June 20. The ban means that membership of, or support for, Palestine Action is now a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. A legal bid to challenge the ban at the High Court by the group's co-founder, Huda Ammori, is ongoing.
Forbes
19 minutes ago
- Forbes
Can States Handle Disasters Without FEMA? The Legal Gaps Business Leaders Should Know
HUNT, TEXAS - JULY 6: Vehicles sit submerged as a search and rescue worker looks through debris for ... More any survivors or remains of people swept up in the flash flooding on July 6, 2025 in Hunt, Texas. Heavy rainfall caused flooding along the Guadalupe River in central Texas with multiple fatalities reported. (Photo by) A year already marked by record-smashing heatwaves, catastrophic storms, and deadly flash floods is forcing business leaders to reckon with an unsettling question: What happens if the federal government pulls back from disaster response? The idea of handling disasters without FEMA is not an abstract worry. In recent weeks, political debates have intensified over proposals to reduce federal spending on disaster relief or even eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after the 2025 hurricane season, as reported by NBC News. Former President Trump and some congressional leaders have floated plans to shift primary responsibility for disaster recovery to state governments—a move that could leave businesses navigating a patchwork of legal systems without the backstop they've come to rely on for decades. This uncertainty comes as disasters batter communities from coast to coast. In the first half of 2025 alone, the U.S. suffered at least 15 billion-dollar weather disasters, including historic flooding, tornado outbreaks, and prolonged heat waves, according to Yale Climate Connections. Just this past weekend, flash floods devastated Kerr County, Texas, forcing rescues and shutting down businesses in a region still recovering from earlier storms. For business owners, investors, and insurers, this brewing shift raises urgent questions: If FEMA disappears, can state laws and budgets fill the gap? Will private enterprises have to shoulder more responsibility for disaster planning and recovery? And which states are prepared—or dangerously unprepared—to protect their residents and economic lifelines in a post-FEMA landscape? A Federal Safety Net Under ThreatALTADENA, CALIFORNIA - JANUARY 30: People walk past a FEMA sign following a press conference at the ... More Altadena Disaster Recovery Center on January 30, 2025 in Altadena, California. House Democratic leaders and local officials held the press conference near the Eaton Fire burn zone to call for federal disaster assistance following the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles County. (Photo by) Since its founding in 1979, FEMA has been the cornerstone of America's disaster response. It funds emergency shelters, debris removal, rebuilding grants, and cash assistance for displaced families. Critically for businesses, FEMA programs like the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant fund projects that reduce future risks, a crucial buffer as extreme weather grows more frequent. Yet the agency has long faced political crossfire, with critics labeling it bloated or inefficient. Earlier this year, a lawsuit was filed against the Trump administration's previous halt to BRIC funding for certain states, highlighting how political swings can upend even well-established federal programs. If proposals to wind down FEMA proceed, business leaders would be left relying on a fragmented patchwork of state disaster laws—many of which, my research suggests, lack the resources or legal frameworks to handle large-scale crises. State Disaster Laws Are A Patchwork of Authority Every U.S. state has laws empowering governors and local officials to declare emergencies and coordinate response efforts. Yet those powers vary widely in scope, funding, and legal protections for vulnerable communities. Despite these structures, most states still rely heavily on FEMA for funding, specialized teams, and logistical support. Without FEMA, states would have to cover enormous costs themselves. For example, after Hurricane Harvey, Texas received over $13 billion in FEMA aid, money that state coffers alone could not match. The Business Risks Of A FEMA Void Businesses have more skin in this game than ever. Beyond humanitarian concerns, legal and financial risks loom if federal safety nets vanish. Federal aid often helps cover costs insurers won't, such as temporary housing, debris removal, and infrastructure repair. Without that aid, insurance companies may face larger payouts or withdraw entirely from high-risk markets. In Florida, for example, multiple insurers have already exited the market due to hurricane risks, leaving businesses scrambling for coverage. A weakened federal role could mean higher premiums, stricter underwriting, or outright denial of coverage in disaster-prone regions, especially for small and midsize enterprises without deep cash reserves. If state laws differ significantly on evacuation orders, business owners may be caught between conflicting mandates. For instance, if local officials order an evacuation, but state law vests that authority only in the governor, businesses face legal ambiguity about when to close operations, protect staff, or move inventory. Disaster response gaps also raise potential civil rights issues. Federal laws like the Stafford Act prohibit discrimination in disaster aid based on race, disability, or language. Many states lack comparable mandates, meaning vulnerable communities—and businesses serving them—could fall through the cracks if federal oversight disappears. Companies with operations across multiple states face a regulatory minefield if FEMA's uniform national standards vanish. Without coordinated federal logistics, restoring supply chains and reopening businesses could take longer, increasing downtime and losses. Which States Are Ready? Which Aren't? Few states are fully prepared to absorb FEMA's responsibilities. According to my analysis of disaster laws across the South and Mid-Atlantic, only a handful—like Virginia and Texas—have begun integrating equity planning, vulnerable population registries, and robust local emergency powers into state statutes. Other states, particularly smaller ones with limited budgets, may lack: That leaves gaps businesses can't ignore. A company operating in Virginia might navigate disaster recovery relatively smoothly, while the same company in Mississippi or Georgia could face a chaotic patchwork of legal obligations, prolonged closures, and community backlash. What Business Leaders Should Do Now While FEMA's fate remains uncertain, businesses should: FEMA's potential dismantling would represent the biggest shift in American disaster management in generations. Businesses that fail to prepare for handling disasters without FEMA amidst a state-led disaster regime risk higher costs, legal headaches, and reputational damage. Disasters don't respect state lines, but the laws governing them increasingly do. For business leaders, understanding those legal boundaries might be the key to survival in a future where the federal safety net is no longer guaranteed.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Coca-Cola confirms it will launch cane sugar version in US amid Trump ‘enthusiasm'
Coca-Cola Company confirmed on Tuesday that it will launch a cane sugar version of its iconic drink in the U.S. amid President Trump's ' enthusiasm,' coming less than a week after the president revealed the change on social media. 'As part of its ongoing innovation agenda, this fall in the United States, the company plans to launch an offering made with U.S. cane sugar to expand its Trademark Coca-Cola product range,' the company said in a news release. The Atlanta-based company said the addition is 'designed to complement the company's strong core portfolio and offer more choices across occasions and preferences.' Trump said in a post on Truth Social last week that Coca-Cola agreed to use cane sugar in its flagship drink instead of high-fructose corn syrup. 'I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so,' the president wrote on Wednesday. 'I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola. This will be a very good move by them — You'll see. It's just better!' The soft drink giant did not confirm the change last week, but said it appreciated Trump's 'enthusiasm' for the brand and that more details on 'new innovative offerings within our Coca‑Cola product range will be shared soon.' The soda sold in the U.S. is usually sweetened with corn syrup, while other countries — like Mexico, already use cane sugar. The 'Mexican Coke' is also sold in the U.S. Trump has been a longtime aficionado of Diet Coke, with the president having a red button installed at the Resolute Desk during his first term. When pressed, a staffer would bring the drink to the president.
