Harvard seeks billions in funding restored at a pivotal hearing in its standoff with Trump
BOSTON -- Lawyers for Harvard University argued in federal court Monday the Trump administration illegally cut US$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 favour, 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.
A lawyer for Harvard, Steven Lehotsky, opened the hearing by saying the Trump administration violated the university's First Amendment rights. He said the government conditioned research grants on Harvard 'ceding control' to the government over what is appropriate for students and faculty to say.
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.'
By Michael Casey
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
FACT FOCUS: Trump claims cashless bail increases crime, but data is inconclusive
As his administration faces mounting pressure to release Justice Department files related the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case, President Donald Trump is highlighting a different criminal justice issue — cashless bail. He suggested in a Truth Social post this week that eliminating cash bail as a condition of pretrial release from jail has led to rising crime in U.S. cities that have enacted these reforms. However, studies have shown no clear link. Here's a closer look at the facts. TRUMP: 'Crime in American Cities started to significantly rise when they went to CASHLESS BAIL. The WORST criminals are flooding our streets and endangering even our great law enforcement officers. It is a complete disaster, and must be ended, IMMEDIATELY!' THE FACTS: Data has not determined the impact of cashless bail on crime rates. But experts say it is incorrect to claim that there is an adverse connection. 'I don't know of any valid studies corroborating the President's claim and would love to know what the Administration offers in support,' said Kellen Funk, a professor at Columbia Law School who studies pretrial procedure and bail bonding. 'In my professional judgment I'd call the claim demonstrably false and inflammatory.' Jeff Clayton, executive director of the American Bail Coalition, the main lobbying arm of the cash bail industry, also pointed to a lack of evidence. 'Studies are inconclusive in terms of whether bail reforms have had an impact on overall crime numbers,' he said. 'This is due to pretrial crime being a small subset of overall crime. It is also difficult to categorize reforms as being 'cashless' or not, i.e., policies where preventative detention is introduced as an alternative to being held on bail.' Different jurisdictions, different laws In 2023, Illinois became the first state to completely eliminate cash bail when the state Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law abolishing it. The move was part of an expansive criminal justice overhaul adopted in 2021 known as the SAFE-T Act. Under the change, a judge decides whether to release the defendant prior to their trial, weighing factors such as their criminal charges, if they could pose any danger to others and if they are considered a flight risk. Loyola University of Chicago's Center for Criminal Justice published a 2024 report on Illinois' new cashless bail policy, one year after it went into effect. It acknowledges that there is not yet enough data to know what impact the law has had on crime, but that crime in Illinois did not increase after its implementation. Violent and property crime declined in some counties. A number of other jurisdictions, including New Jersey, New Mexico and Washington, D.C., have nearly eliminated cash bail or limited its use. Many include exceptions for high-level crimes. Proponents of eliminating cash bail describe it as a penalty on poverty, suggesting that the wealthy can pay their way out of jail to await trial while those with fewer financial resources have to sit it out behind bars. Critics have argued that bail is a time-honored way to ensure defendants released from jail show up for court proceedings. They warn that violent criminals will be released pending trial, giving them license to commit other crimes. A lack of consensus Studies have shown mixed results regarding the impact of cashless bail on crime. Many focus on the recidivism of individual defendants rather than overall crime rates. A 2024 report published by the Brennan Center for Justice saw 'no statistically significant relationship' between bail reform and crime rates. It looked at crime rate data from 2015 through 2021 for 33 cities across the U.S., 22 of which had instituted some type of bail reform. Researchers used a statistical method to determine if crime rates had diverged in those with reforms and those without. Ames Grawert, the report's co-author and senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Justice Program, said this conclusion 'holds true for trends in crime overall or specifically violent crime.' Similarly, a 2023 paper published in the American Economic Journal found no evidence that cash bail helps ensure defendants will show up in court or prevents crime among those who are released while awaiting trial. The paper evaluated the impact of a 2018 policy instituted by the Philadelphia's district attorney that instructed prosecutors not to set bail for certain offenses. A 2019 court decree in Harris County, Texas, requires most people charged with a misdemeanor to be released without bail while awaiting trial. The latest report from the monitoring team responsible for tracking the impact of this decision, released in 2024, notes that the number of people arrested for misdemeanors has declined by more than 15% since 2015. The number of those rearrested within one year has similarly declined, with rearrest rates remaining stable in recent years. Asked what data Trump was using to support his claim, the White House pointed to a 2022 report from the district attorney's office in Yolo County, California, that looked at how a temporary cashless bail system implemented across the state to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks in courts and jails impacted recidivism. It found that out of 595 individuals released between April 2020 and May 2021 under this system, 70.6% were arrested again after they were released. A little more than half were rearrested more than once. A more recent paper, published in February by the IZA Institute of Labor Economics, also explored the effects of California's decision to suspend most bail during the COVID-19 pandemic. It reports that implementation of this policy 'caused notable increases in both the likelihood and number of rearrests within 30 days.' However, a return to cash bail did not impact the number of rearrests for any type of offense. The paper acknowledges that other factors, such as societal disruption from the pandemic, could have contributed to the initial increase. Many contributing factors It is difficult to pinpoint specific explanations for why crime rises and falls. The American Bail Coalition's Clayton noted that other policies that have had a negative impact on crime, implemented concurrently with bail reforms, make it 'difficult to isolate or elevate one or more causes over the others.' Paul Heaton, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who studies criminal justice interventions, had a similar outlook. 'Certainly there are some policy levers that people look at — the size of the police force and certain policies around sentencing,' he said. 'But there's a lot of variation in crime that I think even criminologists don't necessarily fully understand.' ___ Find AP Fact Checks here:
Toronto Star
an hour ago
- Toronto Star
Trump administration investigates Oregon's transgender athlete policies
The Trump administration said Friday it's investigating the Oregon Department of Education after receiving a complaint from a conservative non-profit group alleging the state was violating civil rights law by allowing transgender girls to compete on girls sports teams. It's the latest escalation in the Republican administration's effort to bar transgender athletes from women's sports teams nationwide. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in February to block trans girls from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity.
Toronto Sun
an hour ago
- Toronto Sun
LILLEY: As Trump lashes out, sources say Canadian side playing games
Mark Carney won the election by promising he was best positioned to deal with Donald Trump, but so far he hasn't delivered Get the latest from Brian Lilley straight to your inbox US President Donald Trump speaks as Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney (R) looks on, as they meet during the Group of Seven (G7) Summit at the Pomeroy Kananaskis Mountain Lodge in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada on June 16, 2025. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images) Donald Trump says he's having no luck with Canada on a new trade deal. That won't be a shock to anyone familiar with how talks between Washington and Ottawa have been going. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account On Friday though, Trump let loose on Canada and a whole pile of other topics while speaking with reporters. 'We don't have a deal with Canada,' Trump said. 'August 1 is going to come, and we will have most of our deals finished, if not all. We haven't really had a lot of luck with Canada. I think Canada could be one where they'll just pay tariffs. It's not really a negotiation.' That last part, that it's not really a negotiation, is something I heard Thursday from the Canadian side – before Trump ever spoke. 'We haven't put anything on the table,' said one source well-briefed on the talks. Read More Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The Americans want a deal with us, they've said so repeatedly, and time and again, both Canadian and American sources have said it is Canada's negotiating team getting in the way. 'It should take half a day to get a deal done, we negotiated a deal with China in a weekend,' an American diplomat quipped in May. Back then, a deal seemed possible. In fact, at the beginning of June, government sources were saying that a deal was imminent. Both sides wanted to sign a deal before the G7 meetings in Kananaskis. Somehow, it all fell apart. There is plenty of blame to go around, and Trump will shoulder a great deal of that blame. He's erratic, he's unpredictable, his negotiating style is to create havoc to throw his negotiation partner off balance. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. All of that is true though for every other country in the world and those other countries are getting deals. Canada is not only not getting a deal, but our negotiating style is also irritating Trump to the point that he lashes out. Some Canadians will take joy in irritating Trump, but I'm looking at the rising unemployment, especially in communities like Windsor that rely on the auto sector. Job one for the Carney government should be to protect the jobs of Canadians, not to leave them dangling as our negotiators play games. A month ago, Prime Minister Mark Carney appointed Ambassador Kristen Hillman as Canada's chief negotiator. It's time to pull her – she's not getting the job done. 'She's a wonk,' said one experienced government hand. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'She's good at advising and putting issues into perspective. She's not a negotiator,' said someone with experience working alongside Hillman on this file. RECOMMENDED VIDEO The Americans are looking to secure a deal with us and instead of sending in a salesperson, a closer, we're sending in the accounting team. It won't work. We aren't even trying to secure the same kind of deal. The Americans are looking for a deal in principle, a high-level deal in broad strokes, we are pushing for something more comprehensive than the Americans are interested in. And at the same time as we say we want to negotiate a more comprehensive deal, we put nothing forward – everything is about waiting for them to move. The Americans, you may have noticed, are busy with other countries who want to negotiate. They don't have time for teams playing games. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. One source said that Hillman is playing a similar strategy to what the Canadian delegation used in renegotiating NAFTA in 2017. The problem with that is those tactics irritated the Americans so much that they froze us out, signed a deal with Mexico and we had to play catch up. Mark Carney won the election by promising the public he was best positioned to deal with Donald Trump. So far, he hasn't delivered – and that is hurting Canadian jobs and Canadian companies. Enough of the games, it's time for Carney to replace Hillman and send in someone who can and is willing to negotiate a deal. blilley@ Hockey Sports Toronto & GTA Toronto Blue Jays Columnists
