
Trump team ‘cooked up' legal basis to go after Harvard funding, university lawyers tell judge
In a court hearing on Monday, the university's legal team accused the administration of ' blatant, unrepentant ' First Amendment violations with its list of demands to 'address bias, improve viewpoint diversity, and end ideological capture,' including reviewing departments that 'fuel antisemitic harassment.'
'It's the constitutional third rail, or it should be, for the government to insist it can engage in viewpoint discrimination,' said Harvard's attorney Steven Lehotsky, arguing that the administration is threatening the university's independence.
The White House and the university have sparred for months over the administration's escalating attempts to bend Harvard and other institutions to ideologically driven demands, particularly over opposition to pro-Palestine campus demonstrations against Israel's war in Gaza, which the administration claims are antisemitic.
In April, the government emailed Harvard a set of demands, including to submit to a 'viewpoint diversity' audit and end diversity-based hiring and admissions practices. The administration then threatened to terminate more than $2 billion in federal grants.
Those grants support research into Alzheimer's prevention, cancer treatment, and national security studies, among other projects.
Harvard's federal lawsuit says the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.'
In court documents, attorneys for the university argue that the administration is wielding funding threats as 'leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking at Harvard' while imperiling vital research in medicine, science and technology.
The Trump administration denies the cuts were retaliatory and were under review long before the demand letter was sent in April.
Massachusetts District Judge Allison Burroughs appeared unconvinced.
'You're not taking away grants from labs that have been antisemitic,' she told lawyers for the government during Monday's hearing in Boston.
Burroughs argued that the government provided 'no documentation, no procedure' to determine whether Harvard had 'taken enough steps' to combat allegations of antisemitism.
'The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' she added. 'I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?'
Department of Justice counsel Michael Velchik argued that the administration has authority to make such decisions about where funding should or shouldn't go, and that 'the government does not want to fund research at institutions that fail to address antisemitism to its satisfaction.'
Monday's hearing follows months of tension between Harvard and the Trump administration, which has zeroed in on campus activism at prestigious universities as part of a multi-pronged attack on campus dissent; diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives; and immigration policies and international students.
Department of Homeland Security has accused Harvard of fostering 'anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators,' and the president has complained that the university has not provided the government with information about foreign students he calls 'radicalized lunatics' and 'troublemakers' who 'should not be let back into our Country.'
In May, the administration also tried to rescind Harvard's permissions to enroll international students and forced currently enrolled foreign students to leave the university or risk losing their legal status in the U.S.
Judge Burroughs blocked that attempt day later in a separate lawsuit brought by the university.
The General Services Administration also ordered federal agencies to consider canceling government contracts with Harvard, which the agency accused of continuing to 'engage in race discrimination, including in its admissions process and in other areas of student life' and failing to protect students from antisemitism.
'The gravy train of federal assistance to institutions like Harvard, which enrich their grossly overpaid bureaucrats with tax dollars from struggling American families, is coming to an end,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement when the cuts were first announced. 'Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to access that privilege.'
But the government 'has not — and cannot — identify any rational connection' between allegations of antisemitism and threats to research that 'aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America's position as a global leader in innovation,' according to Harvard's complaint.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
18 minutes ago
- The Independent
Australia to reduce US beef import restrictions denounced by Trump as a ban
Australia will reduce restrictions on U.S. beef imports after U.S. President Donald Trump criticized what he described as an Australian ban on the meat, Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said. Collins said Thursday that relaxing the restrictions designed to keep Australia free of mad cow disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, among its cattle herds would not compromise biosecurity. 'Australia stands for open and free trade — our cattle industry has significantly benefited from this,' Collins said in a statement. Australia has allowed imports of beef grown in the United States since 2019. But Australia has not allowed imports from the U.S. of beef sourced from Canada or Mexico because of the disease risk. But the U.S. has recently introduced additional movement controls that identify and trace all cattle from Mexico and Canada to their farms of origin. US cattle import controls satisfy Australian authorities Australian authorities were 'satisfied the strengthened control measures put in place by the U.S. effectively manage biosecurity risks,' Collins said. The timing of the new, reduced restrictions has not been finalized. Trump attacked Australian import restrictions on U.S. beef when he announced in April that tariffs of at least 10% would be placed on Australian imports, with steel and aluminum facing a 50% tariff. 'Australia bans — and they're wonderful people, and wonderful everything — but they ban American beef,' Trump told reporters then. 'Yet we imported $3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone. They won't take any of our beef. They don't want it because they don't want it to affect their farmers and, you know, I don't blame them, but we're doing the same thing right now,' Trump added. Lawmaker fears appeasing Trump endangers Australian cattle industry Opposition lawmaker David Littleproud suspected the government was endangering Australia's cattle industry to appease Trump. 'I want to see the science and it should be predicated on science. I'm suspicious of the speed at which this has been done,' Littleproud told reporters. 'We need to give confidence to the industry, but also to you (the public): this is not just about animal welfare, this is about human welfare, this is about BSE potentially coming into this country and having a human impact, so I think it's important the government's very transparent about the science and I don't think it's even beyond the question to have an independent panel review that science to give confidence to everybody,' he added. Around 70% of Australian beef is exported. Producers fear that export market would vanish overnight if diseases including mad cow or foot-and-mouth disease infected Australian cattle. Will Evans, chief executive of Cattle Australia who represents more than 52,000 grass-fed beef producers across the nation, said he was confident the agriculture department had taken a cautious approach toward U.S. imports. 'The department's undertaken a technical scientific assessment and we have to put faith in them. They've made this assessment themselves. They've said: 'We've looked at this, we've looked at the best science, this is a decision that we feel comfortable with,'' Evans told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. 'When you have a 75 billion (Australian dollar, $50 billion) industry relying on them not making this mistake, I'm sure they've been very cautious in their decision-making,' he added. US beef prices rise because of drought and a domestic cattle shortage Beef prices have been rising in the U.S. due to factors that include drought and shrinking domestic herd numbers. The average price of a pound of ground beef in the U.S. rose to $6.12 in June, up nearly 12% from a year ago, according to U.S. government data. The average price of all uncooked beef steaks rose 8% to $11.49 per pound. Australia's opposition to any U.S. tariffs will be high on the agenda when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese secures his first face-to-face meeting with Trump. Albanese and Trump were to hold a one-on-one meeting on the sidelines of a Group of Seven summit in Canada last month, but the U.S. president left early. Albanese expects the pair will meet this year, although no date has been announced. The two countries have had a bilateral free trade deal for 20 years and the U.S. has maintained a trade surplus with Australia for decades.


Daily Mail
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Revealed: How Donald Trump spurred stunning call for trans athletes to be BANNED from representing Australia at the Olympics
Senator Claire Chandler has demanded that the Australian Olympic Committee ban trans athletes from competing in the Games after America passed a similar rule on Wednesday. 'The Australian Olympic Committee should be doing what all sporting organisations around the world are doing and recognising that female athletes want to have their sporting categories protected,' Wheeler said on Thursday. 'I'm very glad to see sporting organisations finally recognising the need to protect female-only sport, but frankly speaking, it's taken far too long to get to this point. 'We know that World Athletics, World Swimming, World Rugby, all these peak international sporting organisations over the last five years have realised that women's sport needs protecting. 'It is well past time that Australian sporting organisations start doing exactly the same thing.' Chandler's stance hasn't changed since she introduced the Save Women's Sport private member's bill to parliament in 2022. She did so in the hope that it would prevent sporting clubs and organisations from having legal action taken against them for banning trans athletes from competing in single-sex sports for women and girls. Chandler's latest statement was prompted by the seismic ruling against trans athletes that was reported in America on Wednesday. The US Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) has complied with Donald Trump's executive order banning transgender athletes from women's sports, according to NBC News. The report states that the committee updated its policies to prevent trans women from competing against biological females while representing the USA at the Olympics and Paralympics. It was also reported that national governing bodies of sports federations in the US - which oversee sporting events for all ages - must now follow the Olympic and Paralympic Committee's lead, according to several chief executives of sports within the Olympic movement. 'My Save Women's Sports bill is just as relevant now as it was three or four years ago, when I first introduced it to the parliament, and it's ridiculous that women and girls in Australia don't have a legal right to their own sport,' Chandler said. Her stance has come in for criticism from Equality Australia CEO Anna Brown, who has backed the Australian Olympic Committee's decision to leave policies on trans athlete up to individual sports. 'We hope they continue to prioritise inclusion and only restrict participation where there is a clear risk to safety or fairness,' Brown told Sky News. 'Sporting organisations across Australia have worked hard to include trans women and to ensure everyone is treated with dignity and can participate safely and fairly. 'As recently as 2023, after extensive consultation and research, the Australian Institute of Sport found there was no case for a blanket ban on trans athletes in any sport, even at the elite level.' Trans athletes became a huge issue at the 2024 Paris Olympics when boxers Lin Yu-ting and Imane Khelif were wrongly labelled as transgender after they were accused of failing gender eligibility tests that saw them disqualified from the 2023 World Championships. New Zealand's Laurel Hubbard became the first openly trangender woman to compete at the Olympics when she was an entrant in weightlifting at the Tokyo Games in 2021. Her qualification for the Games sparked calls for the International Olympic Committee to change its rules. And last year, Italian sprinter Valentina Petrillo became the first transgender Paralympian when she competed in the Paris Games after winning bronze at the World Para Athletics Championships in 2023. Senator Chandler's 2022 private member's bill was also slammed when it was announced. Former Tasmanian anti-discrimination commissioner Robin Banks branded it 'a legislative solution to a non-existent problem' and argued that 'discrimination laws should be about preventing discrimination, not promoting it'. The Australian Sports Commission (ASC) guidelines state that it is important for all Australians to have the chance to compete in sport. 'All Australians should have the opportunity to be involved in sport and physical activity, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, ability, cultural background or ethnicity,' the ASC writes. 'It is important that sporting bodies, from local clubs through to national sporting organisations, reflect the diversity in the communities they are a part of, and that together, we ensure every person is treated with respect and dignity and protected from discrimination.'


Daily Mail
18 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Biden suffers humiliating blow as memoir sells for paltry amount compared to Obama, Clinton
Joe Biden has suffered a humiliating blow after shopping his post-presidential memoir to publishers and securing an advance far less than his predecessors. The former president, 82, sold his presidential memoir to Hachette Book Group for around $10million, The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday. The monetary figure is likely to be disappointing for the Bidens, given Barack and Michelle Obama inked a deal worth an estimated $65million for their memoirs. And Bill Clinton secured $15million for his memoir 'My Life' more than 21 years ago. The book was released in 2004. President Trump opted not to publish a memoir after his first term in office. It is understood Hachette has not yet locked in a publication date for Biden's memoir. The 82-year-old has been hard at work detailing his White House years, writing at his home office in Delaware and his post-presidential office in Washington D.C. He said at an event earlier in July that he was 'working my tail off' to get the memoir finished, indicating it would primarily focus on his four years in office. Creative Artists Agency represented Biden for the deal, having also penned the deal for his No. 1 bestselling memoir in 2017 'Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship and Purpose.' That book focused on Biden's relationship with his oldest son Beau, who died of brain cancer in 2015. Readers looking to purchase his latest book will likely be eager to glean new details about his cognitive health during his White House years, as well as information about his prostate cancer diagnosis and the fallout with other Democrats which led to his decision to drop out of the presidential race with Donald Trump. Biden has faced immense scrutiny about his health and whether there was a cover up during his final years in office. He has been forced to defend himself and his staff against Trump's repeated claims that staffers were actually running the show as Biden struggled to keep up. The $10million sum could come as a blow to the couple after insiders told the Daily Mail a joint book deal with Joe and Jill could have been worth as much as $30million. The offer, however, would have been contingent on Jill, who, experts say, could be worth $15 million alone. Jill Biden kept a diary during her White House years, so she has plenty of memories to draw upon. 'She could write a very explosive book if she wanted to,' a former White House aide told the Daily Mail. The former first lady likely would have been required to reveal what she saw happen in regards to her husband's cognitive health, the hours after his disastrous presidential debate with Donald Trump, and the details behind his decision to exit the 2024 race. There were questions about whether she would go scorched earth on the Democrats, writing scathing takedowns of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, George Clooney, Chuck Schumer and all the other Democrats who privately and publicly urged Biden to step down. And she has long been said to have a grudge against Kamala Harris. Her thoughts on the actions of the party's powerful, along with details about the family's discussions surrounding the 2024 presidential campaign, could have made for a powerful best seller. 'She's his grudge-holder for sure, and there are definitely plenty of people she will never talk to again, but it's unlike her to take public swings at specific individuals or lay blame. It's just not her style. That's what is going to sell books, though,' a former Biden aide said. Hunter Biden is around $15 million in debt from his legal fees from several federal cases, along with lagging sales of his art and his memoir, sources previously told the Daily Mail.