
Harvard battles Trump administration in court over canceled funding
By Nate Raymond and Tim McLaughlin
Harvard University urged a federal judge on Monday to order U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to restore about $2.5 billion in canceled federal grants and cease efforts to cut off research funding to the prestigious Ivy League school.
But a lawyer for the Trump administration told the judge the canceled grants reflect a government priority not to send money to institutions that practice antisemitism.
"Harvard prioritized campus protestors over cancer research," said Michael Velchik, a senior lawyer at the U.S. Justice Department. He told the judge she shouldn't be hearing the case in the first place, arguing the matter belonged in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which handles monetary disputes.
The court hearing before U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston lasted more than two hours, but ended without a ruling. The case marks a crucial moment in the White House's escalating conflict with Harvard, which has been in the administration's crosshairs after it rejected a list of demands to make changes to its governance, hiring and admissions practices in April.
The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based university says hundreds of research projects including ones concerning cancer treatments, infectious diseases and Parkinson's disease will be in jeopardy unless the judge declares the grant cancellations unlawful.
The country's oldest and richest university has become a central focus of the administration's broad campaign to leverage federal funding to force change at U.S. universities, which Trump says are gripped by antisemitic and "radical left" ideologies.
Steven Lehotsky, a lawyer for Harvard, said the government has made wholesale cuts to research under the guise of combating antisemitism, but hasn't identified any connection between the two.
"The administration has given no consideration to patients, the public at large and the harm of all this research being cut off," Lehotsky told the court.
Among the earliest actions the administration took against Harvard was the cancellation of hundreds of grants awarded to researchers on the grounds that the school failed to do enough to address harassment of Jewish students on its campus.
The Trump administration has since sought to bar international students from attending the school; threatened Harvard's accreditation status; and opened the door to cutting off more funds by finding it violated federal civil rights law.
Burroughs said she had problems with the government's argument that it has the ability to terminate Harvard's federal funding grants for any policy reasons.
"That's a major stumbling block for me," Burroughs said.
Burroughs also questioned the government's stance that there doesn't have to be an adversarial process to suss out whether Harvard has taken steps to root out antisemtism on campus.
"If you can make this decision, that we're going to withdraw all this funding for reasons oriented around speech, the consequences to that, in terms of constitutional law, are staggering to me," Burroughs said.
Meanwhile, as part of Trump's spending and tax bill, the Republican-led Congress increased the federal excise tax on Harvard's income from its $53 billion endowment to 8% from 1.4%. Income from the endowment covers 40% of Harvard's operating budget.
Harvard President Alan Garber said last week that the various federal actions since Trump returned to office in January could strip the school of nearly $1 billion annually, forcing it to lay off staff and freeze hiring. The amount includes the impact of the multi-year federal grants canceled by the Trump administration.
Harvard has said it has taken steps to ensure its campus is welcoming to Jewish and Israeli students, who it acknowledges experienced "vicious and reprehensible" treatment following the onset of Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza in October 2023.
But, Garber has said the administration's demands have gone far beyond addressing antisemitism and unlawfully seek to regulate the "intellectual conditions" on its campus by controlling who it hires and who it teaches.
Those demands, which came in an April 11 letter from an administration task force, included calls for the private university to restructure its governance, alter its hiring and admissions practices to ensure an ideological balance of viewpoints and end certain academic programs.
After Harvard rejected those demands, it said the administration began retaliating against it in violation of the free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment by abruptly cutting funding the school says is vital to supporting scientific and medical research.
Burroughs, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, in a separate case has already barred the administration from halting its ability to host international students. She is expected to issue a written ruling in the funding case in the coming weeks.
© Thomson Reuters 2025.
Hashtags

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

Nikkei Asia
an hour ago
- Nikkei Asia
Thai-Cambodian border clashes spread to previously peaceful areas
Thai civilians shelter in a hall in Surin province near the Cambodian border on July 25 after fleeing their homes to escape cross-border shelling. Hundreds of thousands of people have evacuated from border areas in both countries to escape the worst fighting between the neighbors in a decade. © Reuters ANANTH BALIGA and YUICHI NITTA PHNOM PENH/BANGKOK -- The cross-border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia escalated dramatically on Saturday, the third day of clashes, as the fighting spread from long-contested territory to hitherto peaceful regions. Cambodia's Defense Ministry accused the Thais of an "unprovoked and premeditated act of aggression" at 5:02 a.m., "involving the firing of five heavy artillery shells into multiple locations in Ekphap Village, Thmor Da Commune, Veal Veng District, Pursat Province."

Nikkei Asia
4 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
China's Premier Li proposes global AI cooperation organization
Chinese Premier Li Qiang speaks during the opening ceremony of World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai on July 26. © Reuters SHANGHAI (Reuters) -- Chinese Premier Li Qiang on Saturday proposed establishing an organization to foster global cooperation on artificial intelligence, calling on countries to coordinate on the development and security of the fast-evolving technology. Speaking at the opening of the annual World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC) in Shanghai, Li called AI a new engine for growth, but adding that governance is fragmented and emphasizing the need for more coordination between countries to form a globally recognized framework for AI.

Japan Times
4 hours ago
- Japan Times
U.S. judge reaffirms injunction on Trump birthright citizenship order
A U.S. federal judge in Massachusetts ruled on Friday that a nationwide injunction he issued in February that blocked President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship should remain in place. In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston said his earlier nationwide injunction was the only way to provide complete relief to a coalition of Democratic-led states that brought the lawsuit before him, rejecting the Trump administration's argument that a narrower ruling was warranted because of a June decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. Sorokin wrote that the evidence before him "does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer if the unlawful policy announced in the Executive Order takes effect during the pendency of this lawsuit." White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement that "courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text" of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. "We look forward to being vindicated on appeal," Jackson said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, a Democrat, said in a statement that the states were thrilled with the decision. "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our nation's history. The president cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.' The Supreme Court's June 27 ruling in litigation over Trump's birthright citizenship order limited the ability of judges to issue so-called "universal" injunctions — in which a single district court judge can block enforcement of a federal policy across the country — and directed lower courts that had blocked the Republican president's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. But the ruling contained exceptions allowing courts to potentially still block it across the country again. That has already allowed a judge in New Hampshire to once again halt Trump's order from taking effect by issuing an injunction in a nationwide class action of children who would be denied citizenship under the policy. A federal appeals court in California on Wednesday said Trump's executive order violated the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment by denying citizenship to many persons born in the U.S., and blocked its enforcement nationwide. Trump signed the executive order on Jan. 20, his first day back in office, as part of his crackdown on immigration. The executive order directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. It was swiftly challenged in court by Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it was unconstitutional. Last week, the states had argued at a hearing before Sorokin that a nationwide injunction was essential. They said restricting birthright citizenship in some states but not others would make it difficult to administer federal benefits programs like Medicaid. A patchwork approach would also lead to confusion among immigrant parents and a surge of people moving to states where Trump's executive order is on hold, straining resources, they argued. The Justice Department had countered that the states, by continuing to advocate for universal relief, had failed to come to grips with the Supreme Court's decision.