Harvard vs Trump: University urges court to reinstate $2.5 billion in research grants cut by Trump Administration
Harvard, the country's oldest university, says hundreds of critical research projects — from cancer treatments to infectious disease control — are now at risk.
'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 stated in its lawsuit. '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.'
The Trump administration argues the funding cuts are justified and not retaliatory.
'The Trump administration's proposition is simple and commonsense,' said White House spokesperson Harrison Fields. 'Don't allow antisemitism and DEI to run your campus, don't break the law, and protect the civil liberties of all students.'
According to Fields, Harvard failed to comply with demands from a federal antisemitism task force in an April 11 letter that called for sweeping changes in governance, hiring, admissions, and academic programming.
Harvard says it has taken meaningful steps to support Jewish and Israeli students, who faced what President Alan Garber called 'vicious and reprehensible' treatment following the onset of the Israel-Hamas war in October 2023. However, the school contends that the administration's demands extended well beyond concerns about antisemitism.
The administration's efforts go far beyond addressing campus safety, Garber said, adding they are an unlawful attempt to regulate the intellectual conditions at Harvard by controlling who we hire and what we teach.
Judge Burroughs is being asked to declare the grant cancellations unlawful. The Trump administration, however, argues that Burroughs lacks jurisdiction to hear the case, asserting that grant contracts can be revoked if projects don't align with federal policy.
In response, Harvard emphasised the human and national costs: 'The government fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism,' the university said in court filings.
Research funding is just one front in a broader effort by the Trump administration to pressure the university. The administration has:
Garber warned that the cumulative financial impact could strip Harvard of nearly $1 billion annually, leading to layoffs and a hiring freeze.
A second lawsuit filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's suit, amplifying the legal and academic implications.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
34 minutes ago
- Mint
US pauses visa processing at embassy in Niger, State Dept says
WASHINGTON, July 26 (Reuters) - The United States is pausing all routine visa services at U.S. embassy in Nigerien capital Niamey until further notice, according to a State Department spokesperson and an internal State Department cable seen by Reuters on Saturday. The July 25-dated cable did not provide a reason for the move but a State Department spokesperson said the pause, which would cover all immigrant and non-immigrant visa categories, was in place until Washington addressed "concerns with the Government of Niger." The spokesperson did not provide further details on the reason, but said that most diplomatic and official visas were excepted from the pause. "The Trump Administration is focused on protecting our nation and our citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process," the Department spokesperson said. The diplomatic cable also instructed consular officers in other visa processing posts to apply "heightened scrutiny" when assessing non-immigrant visa applications for Nigerien nationals, whose overstay rates it said were 8 percent for visitor visas and 27 percent for student and exchange visas. Consular managers should make an effort to reduce the number of overstays by nonimmigrant visa holders in the United States, the cable said and added: "In this regard, particular vigilance is needed in adjudicating Nigerien NIV applicants." The U.S. embassy in Niamey has informed all individuals impacted, the spokesperson added. As part of his hardline stance on immigration, President Donald Trump has ordered a nationwide campaign to arrest migrants who are in the country illegally and has vowed to deport millions of people, executing raids at work sites including farms that were largely exempted from enforcement during his first term. Trump administration officials have said student visa and green card holders are subject to deportation over their support for Palestinians and criticism of Israel's conduct in the war in Gaza, calling their actions a threat to U.S. foreign policy and accusing them of being pro-Hamas. Rubio in May said the number of visas he has revoked was probably in the thousands. The State Department under his leadership significantly tightened social media vetting for U.S. visa applicants. The U.S. military in September said it had completed its withdrawal from Niger, after the West African nation's ruling junta in April 2024 ordered Washington to withdraw its nearly 1,000 military personnel from the country. It was an embarrassing setback for Washington that followed a coup last year in the West African nation. Before the coup, Niger had been a key partner in the U.S. fight against insurgents in the Sahel region of Africa, who have killed thousands of people and displaced millions more. (Reporting by Humeyra Pamuk, Editing by Nick Zieminski)
India.com
34 minutes ago
- India.com
Big setback for Donald Trump as Federal Court strikes down birthright citizenship order across US; how will it affect Indians?
(Image: Reuters) New Delhi: A federal court in America has again stayed President Donald Trump's order which said that if a child's parents are living illegally in America, then that child will not get American citizenship. This is the third time that the court has stopped Trump's order from being implemented. The court also said that the final decision on this matter will be taken by the Supreme Court, but until any order comes from there, this rule of Trump will not be implemented. When was the order passed? Trump had banned Birthright Citizenship by signing an executive order on January 20, the day of his swearing-in. A few days after this, the US Federal Court had stayed President Donald Trump's decision to end the right to birthright citizenship for 14 days. Earlier on June 28, the US Supreme Court had given a decision in favour of President Trump. The Supreme Court had said that the judges of the lower courts cannot stop Trump's birthright citizenship order across the country. They should reconsider their order. What did the US Supreme Court say? The Supreme Court had said with a majority of 6-3 that a federal judge alone cannot decide to stop policies across the country. Now if a case like Trump's order has to be stopped, then many people will have to sue together, not just one state or person. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the decision, had said – the job of federal courts is not to monitor government orders. Their job is to resolve matters according to the powers given by Parliament. However, the court did not give any immediate decision on Trump's order and also ordered not to allow Trump's order to be implemented for 30 days i.e. till July 28. This means that for now, children born in America will continue to get citizenship, as they used to get earlier. Under which 3 situations citizenship is not granted by Trump's order? The executive order by which Trump abolished the birthright citizenship law is named 'Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship'. This order refuses to grant American citizenship in 3 situations. If the mother of a child born in America is living there illegally. At the time of the child's birth, the mother is a legal but temporary resident of America. The father should not be a US citizen or a legal permanent resident at the time of the child's birth. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution gives the right to birthright citizenship. Through this, children of immigrants living in the US also get the right to citizenship. What will be the effect on Indians? According to the data of the US Census Bureau till 2024, about 54 lakh Indians live in America. This is about one and a half percent of the US population. Two-thirds of these people are first generation immigrants. That is, they went to America first in the family, but the rest are citizens born in America. If the Supreme Court gives an order in favour of Trump's bill, then it will become difficult for first generation immigrants to get American citizenship. However, if it gives an order against it, then citizenship will remain as before.
NDTV
40 minutes ago
- NDTV
Fired Immigration Judges Vow To Fight Back Against Trump Administration Terminations
Chicago: Federal immigration judges fired by the Trump administration are filing appeals, pursuing legal action and speaking out in an unusually public campaign to fight back. More than 50 immigration judges - from senior leaders to new appointees - have been fired since Donald Trump assumed the presidency for the second time. Normally bound by courtroom decorum, many are now unrestrained in describing terminations they consider unlawful and why they believe they were targeted. Their suspected reasons include gender discrimination, decisions on immigration cases played up by the Trump administration and a courthouse tour with the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. "I cared about my job and was really good at it," Jennifer Peyton, a former supervising judge told The Associated Press this week. "That letter that I received, the three sentences, explained no reason why I was fired." Peyton, who received the notice while on a July Fourth family vacation, was appointed judge in 2016. She considered it her dream job. Peyton was later named assistant chief immigration judge in Chicago, helping to train, mentor and oversee judges. She was a visible presence in the busy downtown court, greeting outside observers. She cited top-notch performance reviews and said she faced no disciplinary action. Peyton said she'll appeal through the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent government agency Trump has also targeted. Peyton's theories about why she was fired include appearing on a "bureaucrat watchdog list" of people accused by a right-wing organization of working against the Trump agenda. She also questions a courthouse tour she gave to Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois in June. Durbin blasted Peyton's termination as an "abuse of power," saying he's visited before as part of his duties as a publicly-elected official. The nation's immigration courts - with a backlog of about 3.5 million cases - have become a key focus of Trump's hard-line immigration enforcement efforts. The firings are on top of resignations, early retirements and transfers, adding up to 106 judges gone since January, according to the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents judges. There are currently about 600 immigration judges. Several of those fired, including Peyton, have recently done a slew of interviews on local Chicago television stations and with national outlets, saying they now have a platform for their colleagues who remain on the bench. "The ones that are left are feeling threatened and very uncertain about their future," said Matt Biggs, the union's president. Carla Espinoza, a Chicago immigration judge since 2023, was fired as she was delivering a verdict this month. Her notice said she'd be dismissed at the end of her two-year probationary period with the Executive Office for Immigration Review. "I am personally committed to my career. We're not political appointees," she told AP. "I'm entitled to a reason." She believes the firings have disproportionately affected women and ethnic minorities, including people with Hispanic-sounding surnames like hers. She plans to take legal action before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has also shifted focus under Trump. "There's a very strong pattern of discriminatory factors," she said. Espinoza thinks another reason could be her decision to release a Mexican immigrant falsely accused of threatening to assassinate Trump. Ramon Morales Reyes was accused of a writing a threatening letter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. But the claims quickly fell apart as Wisconsin authorities determined that Morales Reyes was actually framed by a man who had previously attacked him. Espinoza said she felt pressure with public scrutiny, media coverage and Noem's statements about Morales Reyes, which weren't corrected or removed from social media. "It's hard to silence the noise and just do your job fairly when there's so much distraction," she said. "I think I did. And I stand by my decision as having been a fair one to release an individual who I believe was twice victimized." The Executive Office for Immigration Review, part of the Justice Department that oversees the immigration courts, declined to comment on the firings through an agency spokesperson. Peyton said she isn't sure that working as an immigration judge is still her dream job. "It's important that everyone in our country knows what's happening in our immigration courts," she said. "The Department of Justice that I joined in 2016 is not the same one now."
