
Harvard is hoping court rules Trump administration's $2.6B research cuts were illegal
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
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: Trump calls to prosecute Beyoncé based on a nonexistent $11 million payment
President Donald Trump over the weekend called for the prosecution of music superstar Beyoncé – based on something that did not actually happen. Trump claimed in a social media post that Beyoncé broke the law by supposedly getting paid $11 million for her endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris during an October 2024 event in Houston. But there is simply no basis for Trump's claim that Beyoncé received an $11 million payment related to the Harris campaign, let alone for the endorsement in particular. Federal campaign spending records show a $165,000 payment from the Harris campaign to Beyoncé's production company, which the campaign listed as a 'campaign event production' expense. A Harris campaign spokesperson told Deadline last year that they didn't pay celebrity endorsers, but were required by law to cover the costs connected to their appearances. Regardless of the merits of this particular $165,000 expenditure, it's far from an $11 million one. Nobody has ever produced any evidence for the claim of an eight-figure endorsement payment to Beyoncé since the claim that it was '$10 million' began spreading last year among Trump supporters on social media. Fact-check websites and PolitiFact looked into the '$10 million' claim during the campaign and did not find any basis for it. The White House did not immediately respond to a CNN request late Saturday for any evidence of Trump's $11 million figure. When Trump previously invoked the baseless figure, during an interview in February, he described his source in the vaguest of terms: 'Somebody just showed me something. They gave her $11 million.' A Harris spokesperson referred CNN on Saturday to a November social media post by Beyoncé's mother Tina Knowles, who called the claim of a $10 million payment a 'lie' and noted it was taken down by Instagram as 'False Information.' 'When In Fact: Beyonce did not receive a penny for speaking at a Presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harrris's (sic) Rally in Houston,' Knowles wrote. A spokesperson for Beyoncé told PolitiFact in November that the claim about a $10 million payment is 'beyond ridiculous.' What Trump wrote Sunday Trump revived the false claim in a social media post published after midnight early Sunday morning in Scotland, where he is visiting. He wrote that he is looking at 'the fact' that Democrats 'admit to paying, probably illegally, Eleven Million Dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT.' Democratic officials actually reject the claim of an $11 million payment. The White House did not immediately respond to CNN's request for any evidence of a Democratic admission of such a payment. Trump went on to criticize other payments from the Harris campaign to organizations connected to prominent endorsers. He asserted without evidence that these payments were inaccurately described in spending records. And he wrongly asserted that it is 'TOTALLY ILLEGAL' to pay for political endorsements, though no federal law forbids endorsement payments. Trump concluded: 'Kamala, and all of those that received Endorsement money, BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter.' Trump has repeatedly called for the prosecution of political opponents. His Saturday post about Harris and celebrity endorsements was an escalation from a post in May, when he said he would call for a 'major investigation' on the subject but did not explicitly mention prosecutions.

Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump says he would ‘like' to strike a trade deal with the EU
US President Donald Trump said on Sunday he would 'like' to strike a trade deal with the EU, adding there was a '50-50 chance'.Trump said Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China, US to extend tariff pause at Sweden talks by another 90 days, SCMP reports
(Reuters) -Beijing and Washington are expected to extend their tariff truce by another three months at trade talks in Stockholm beginning on Monday, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported on Sunday, citing people familiar with the matter. During the expected 90-day extension, the U.S. and China will agree not to introduce new tariffs or take other actions that could further escalate the trade war, the report said. While the earlier discussions in Geneva and London focused on "de-escalation", the latest meeting the Chinese delegation will also press Trump's trade team on fentanyl-related tariffs, the report further said, citing three sources familiar with the matter. Reuters could not immediately verify the report. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The third round of U.S.-China talks is set to be held in Stockholm on Monday to tackle longstanding economic disputes at the centre of the countries' trade war. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data