Latest news with #Trump-hating
NZ Herald
7 hours ago
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Harvard slams Trump administration funding cuts in pivotal court hearing
Steven P. Lehotsky, who argued for Harvard, called the Government's actions a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment, touching a 'constitutional third rail' that threatened the academic freedom of private universities. The attorney for the Government cast the case as a fight over billions of dollars. 'Harvard is here because it wants the money,' said Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer. But the Government can choke the flow of taxpayer dollars to institutions that show a 'deliberate indifference to anti-Semitism', he said. President Donald Trump reacted to the hearing on Monday afternoon with a post on social media about the judge. 'She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling.' He called Harvard 'anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America'. 'How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN. Also, the Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard,' he said. Spokespeople for Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday about the President's remarks. Peter McDonough, vice-president and general counsel at the American Council on Education, said all of higher education could be impacted by the case. 'And I don't think it is too dramatic to say that Americans and the constitutional protections that they value are in court,' he said. 'Freedom of speech is on trial, due process is on trial,' he said, with the executive branch of the Government essentially charged with having violated those rights. The administration has engaged in intense efforts to force changes in higher education, which it has said has been captured by leftist ideology and has not done enough to combat antisemitism in the wake of protests at some colleges over the Israel-Gaza war. Its biggest target has been Harvard. The administration announced earlier this year that it would review nearly US$9 billion ($15b) in federal funding to the school and its affiliates, including local hospitals whose physicians teach at Harvard Medical School. In April, a letter from a federal anti-Semitism task force, alluding to civil rights law, demanded that the university upend its governance, hiring, student discipline and admissions, and submit to years-long federal oversight over multiple aspects of its operations. Harvard has been the Trump administration's biggest target. Photo / Allison Robbert, The Washington Post Harvard refused to comply. Hours later, the administration announced it would freeze more than US$2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard. It has also launched multiple investigations into the Ivy League institution's operations, threatened to revoke the school's tax-exempt status and moved to block its ability to enrol international students. Harvard filed a lawsuit challenging the funding cuts, and later filed another to counter the administration's effort to block international students and scholars from Harvard. In the latter case, Burroughs twice ruled swiftly in Harvard's favour, allowing the university to continue welcoming non-US students while the case proceeds. On Monday, Harvard's lawyers argued that the Government violated the school's First Amendment rights and ignored the requirements of federal civil rights law, and that its actions were unlawfully arbitrary and capricious. Any claim that Harvard is simply interested in getting money back is 'just false', Lehotsky said. 'We're here for our constitutional rights.' He called the Government's actions an end-run around Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and compared it to the scene in Alice in Wonderland in which the queen orders that the sentence comes first then the verdict afterwards, with the funding freeze preceding the investigation required by statute. 'The Government now says Title VI is totally irrelevant,' he said, arguing it had cooked up a post hoc rationale. Harvard had asked the judge to grant a summary judgment, set aside the funding freezes and terminations, and block any similar actions as soon as possible before September 3, after which the university believes the Government will take the position that restoration of the funds is not possible. Velchik, the Justice Department attorney – himself a Harvard alumnus – defended the Government's decisions to slash the university's funding in response to what he said was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism. 'Harvard does not have a monopoly on the truth,' he said. Those same funds would be 'better spent going to HBCUs or community colleges'. The Government cancelled the grants under an obscure regulation that allows it to terminate funding when they no longer align with agency priorities. 'Harvard should have read the fine print,' Velchik said. Although Burroughs pushed both sides to justify their arguments, she appeared sceptical of the administration's rationale for the cuts. She repeatedly pressed the Government on what process it had followed in deciding to terminate a major portion of Harvard's federal funding. 'This is a big stumbling block for me,' she said, even as she acknowledged the Government had argued some of its points well. ('A Harvard education is paying off for you,' she told Velchik.) Burroughs noted that the Government had apparently slashed Harvard's funding without following any established procedure or even examining the steps Harvard itself had taken to combat anti-Semitism. If the administration can base its decision on reasons connected to protected speech, Burroughs said, the consequences for 'constitutional law are staggering'. At one point, Velchik appeared to grow emotional. He spoke about wanting to go to Harvard since he was a child, then seeing the campus 'besieged by protesters' and hearing about Jewish students wearing baseball caps to hide their kippot, a visible sign of their identity. 'It's sick. Federal taxpayers should not support this,' he said. Burroughs also spoke about the case in unusually personal terms. 'I am both Jewish and American,' she said. Harvard itself has acknowledged anti-Semitism as an issue, she said. But 'what is the connection to cutting off funding to Alzheimer's or cancer research?' she asked. 'One could argue it hurts Americans and Jews.' A complaint by Harvard's chapter of the American Association of University Professors against the administration, filed before the university took action, is being heard concurrently with Harvard's case. In its court filings, the Justice Department urged Burroughs to reject Harvard's request for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a motion in which a party in a civil suit asks a judge to decide a case before it goes to trial. To win a summary judgment, the party filing the motion must show there is no genuine dispute over the central facts of the case and they would prevail on the legal merits if the case were to go to trial. Harvard supporters, with crimson-coloured shirts, signs and hats along with American flag pins, crowded around the main entrance of the John Joseph Moakley federal courthouse on Monday afternoon. About 100 alumni, faculty, staff and students rallied in a joint protest with the Crimson Courage alumni group and supporters of the American Association of University Professors union. 'What the federal administration is doing is basically co-opting American values for their own political ends, and we are determined to say this is not what America is about,' said Evelyn J. Kim, a co-chair of the Crimson Courage communications team and a 1995 Harvard graduate. 'America is about the values that allow for Harvard to exist.' Walter Willett, 80, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, biked to the rally to deliver a speech to the group. In May, US$3.6 million of National Institutes of Health grant money that funded Willett's research on breast cancer and women's and men's health was cut, he said. It is critical to push back against the administration, Willett said. 'In this case, our basic freedom – what we're fighting for – is also at stake.' Harvard has taken numerous steps to address anti-Semitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war sparked concerns. Photo / Josh Reynolds, The Washington Post The stakes are high – and not just for Harvard. More than a dozen amicus briefs filed in support of Harvard argue the administration is imperilling academic freedom, the autonomy of institutions of higher education and the decades-long research partnership between universities and the federal government. Eighteen former officials who served in past Democratic and Republican administrations noted in a brief that they were aware of no instances in more than 40 years where federal funds had been terminated under Title VI, the provision of civil rights law that Trump officials have in some cases cited in slashing Harvard's grants. The administration received outside support in a brief filed by the attorneys general of 16 states, led by Iowa. 'There are apparently three constant truths in American life: death, taxes, and Harvard University's discrimination against Jews,' it said, citing Harvard's own internal report on anti-Semitism on campus. Harvard has taken numerous steps to address anti-Semitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war in the 2023-24 academic year sparked concerns from some Jewish and Israeli students, but the administration has repeatedly said the problem persists and must be acted upon forcefully. James McAffrey, 22, a senior and first-generation college student from Oklahoma, co-chairs the Harvard Students for Freedom, a student group that joined the rally on Monday to support the school. He said the administration's actions pose a threat to the nation's wellbeing. 'I think the reality is it's time for us to root out the evils of anti-Americanism in the Trump administration,' he said.
Yomiuri Shimbun
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Harvard Slams Trump Administration Funding Cuts in Pivotal Court Hearing
BOSTON – Attorneys for the nation's oldest university said Monday that the Trump administration's reasons for withholding billions in federal funding were 'cooked up,' and unconstitutional, sparring with the government during a key hearing in a legal battle that could determine whether the president's attacks on higher education will stand. A federal judge heard arguments from a team of attorneys for Harvard University and its chapter of the American Association of University Professors and from a lawyer for the federal government, peppering them with questions as Harvard cast its arguments as a First Amendment case and the government sought to frame it as simply a dispute over money and contracts. The hearing marked a pivotal moment in the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration in an unprecedented case that is being watched by all of higher education. Harvard has challenged the administration's move to slash billions of dollars in federal funding with critical scientific research and the autonomy of the nearly 400-year-old university on the line. The administration's lawyer said the government froze the funding because the school had not done enough to combat antisemitism. Both sides had asked the judge to issue a ruling in the case without a trial, but U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ended the hearing without rendering a decision. Burroughs acknowledged that both sides want a rapid resolution; Harvard, in particular, has pleaded urgency in hopes that the funding terminations will not become final. Steven P. Lehotsky, who argued for Harvard, called the government's actions a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment, touching a 'constitutional third rail' that threatened the academic freedom of private universities. The lone attorney for the government cast the case as a fight over billions of dollars. 'Harvard is here because it wants the money,' said Michael Velchik, a Justice Department lawyer. But the government can choke the flow of taxpayer dollars to institutions that show a 'deliberate indifference to antisemitism,' he said. President Donald Trump reacted to the hearing Monday afternoon with a post on social media about the judge. 'She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling.' He called Harvard 'anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America.' 'How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN. Also, the Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard,' he said. Spokespeople for Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday about the president's remarks. Peter McDonough, vice president and general counsel at the American Council on Education, said all of higher education could be impacted by the case. 'And I don't think it is too dramatic to say that Americans and the constitutional protections that they value are in court,' he said. 'Freedom of speech is on trial, due process is on trial,' he said, with the executive branch of the government essentially charged with having violated those rights. The administration has engaged in intense efforts to force changes in higher education, which it has said has been captured by leftist ideology and has not done enough to combat antisemitism in the wake of protests at some colleges over the Israel-Gaza war. Its biggest target has been Harvard. The administration announced earlier this year that it would review nearly $9 billion in federal funding to the school and its affiliates, including local hospitals whose physicians teach at Harvard Medical School. In April, a letter from a federal antisemitism task force, alluding to civil rights law, demanded that the university upend its governance, hiring, student discipline and admissions, and submit to years-long federal oversight over multiple aspects of its operations. Harvard refused to comply. Hours later, the administration announced it would freeze more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard. It has also launched multiple investigations into the Ivy League institution's operations, threatened to revoke the school's tax-exempt status, and moved to block its ability to enroll international students. Harvard filed a lawsuit challenging the funding cuts, and later filed another to counter the administration's effort to block international students and scholars from Harvard. In the latter case, Burroughs twice ruled swiftly in Harvard's favor, allowing the university to continue welcoming non-U.S. students while the case proceeds. On Monday, Harvard's lawyers argued that the government violated the school's First Amendment rights and ignored the requirements of federal civil rights law, and that its actions were unlawfully arbitrary and capricious. Any claim that Harvard is simply interested in getting money back is 'just false,' Lehotsky said. 'We're here for our constitutional rights.' He called the government's actions an end-run around Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and compared it to the scene in 'Alice in Wonderland' in which the queen orders that the sentence comes first then the verdict afterward, with the funding freeze preceding the investigation required by statute. 'The government now says Title VI is totally irrelevant,' he said, arguing it had cooked up a post hoc rationale. Harvard had asked the judge to grant a summary judgment, set aside the funding freezes and terminations, and block any similar actions as soon as possible before Sept. 3, after which the university believes the government will take the position that restoration of the funds is not possible. Velchik, the Justice Department attorney – himself a Harvard alumnus – defended the government's decisions to slash the university's funding in response to what he said was its failure to tackle antisemitism. 'Harvard does not have a monopoly on the truth,' he said. Those same funds would be 'better spent going to HBCUs or community colleges.' The government canceled the grants under an obscure regulation that allows it to terminate funding when they no longer align with agency priorities. 'Harvard should have read the fine print,' Velchik said. Although Burroughs pushed both sides to justify their arguments, she appeared skeptical of the administration's rationale for the cuts. She repeatedly pressed the government on what process it had followed in deciding to terminate a major portion of Harvard's federal funding. 'This is a big stumbling block for me,' she said, even as she acknowledged the government had argued some of its points well. (A 'Harvard education is paying off for you,' she told Velchik.) Burroughs noted that the government had apparently slashed Harvard's funding without following any established procedure or even examining the steps Harvard itself had taken to combat antisemitism. If the administration can base its decision on reasons connected to protected speech, Burroughs said, the consequences for 'constitutional law are staggering.' At one point, Velchik appeared to grow emotional. He spoke about wanting to go to Harvard since he was a child, then seeing the campus 'besieged by protesters' and hearing about Jewish students wearing baseball caps to hide their kippot, a visible sign of their identity. 'It's sick. Federal taxpayers should not support this,' he said. Burroughs also spoke about the case in unusually personal terms. 'I am both Jewish and American,' she said. Harvard itself has acknowledged antisemitism as an issue, she said. But 'what is the connection to cutting off funding to Alzheimer's or cancer research?' she asked. 'One could argue it hurts Americans and Jews.' A complaint by Harvard's chapter of the American Association of University Professors against the administration, filed before the university took action, is being heard concurrently with Harvard's case. In its court filings, the Justice Department urged Burroughs to reject Harvard's request for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a motion in which a party in a civil suit asks a judge to decide a case before it goes to trial. To win a summary judgment, the party filing the motion must show there is no genuine dispute over the central facts of the case and they would prevail on the legal merits if the case were to go to trial. Harvard supporters, with crimson colored shirts, signs and hats along with American flag pins, crowded around the main entrance of the John Joseph Moakley federal courthouse Monday afternoon. About 100 alumni, faculty, staff and students rallied in a joint protest with the Crimson Courage alumni group and supporters of the American Association of University Professors union. 'What the federal administration is doing is basically co-opting American values for their own political ends, and we are determined to say this is not what America is about,' said Evelyn J. Kim, a co-chair of the Crimson Courage communications team and a 1995 Harvard graduate. 'America is about the values that allow for Harvard to exist.' Walter Willett, 80, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, biked to the rally to deliver a speech to the group. In May, $3.6 million of National Institutes of Health grant money that funded Willett's research on breast cancer and women's and men's health was cut, he said. It is critical to push back against the administration, Willett said. 'In this case, our basic freedom – what we're fighting for – is also at stake.' The stakes are high – and not just for Harvard. More than a dozen amicus briefs filed in support of Harvard argue that the administration is imperiling academic freedom, the autonomy of institutions of higher education and the decades-long research partnership between universities and the federal government. Eighteen former officials who served in past Democratic and Republican administrations noted in a brief that they were aware of no instances in more than 40 years where federal funds had been terminated under Title VI, the provision of civil rights law that Trump officials have in some cases cited in slashing Harvard's grants. The administration received outside support in a brief filed by the attorneys general of 16 states, led by Iowa. 'There are apparently three constant truths in American life: death, taxes, and Harvard University's discrimination against Jews,' it said, citing Harvard's own internal report on antisemitism on campus. Harvard has taken numerous steps to address antisemitism after protests over the Israel-Gaza war in the 2023-2024 academic year sparked concerns from some Jewish and Israeli students, but the administration has repeatedly said the problem persists and must be acted upon forcefully. James McAffrey, 22, a senior and first-generation college student from Oklahoma, co-chairs the Harvard Students for Freedom, a student group that joined the rally Monday to support the school. He said the administration's actions pose a threat to the nation's well-being. 'I think the reality is it's time for us to root out the evils of anti-Americanism in the Trump administration,' he said.
Time of India
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
'Total disaster': Trump slams Obama appointed judge in Harvard case hearing; vows to appeal again if loses
US President Donald Trump launched a attack on a federal judge presiding over a high-stakes legal battle between his administration and Harvard University, accusing her of bias and vowing to appeal in case of an unfavourable ruling. Taking to his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote, 'The Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed Judge. She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling. She has systematically taken over the various Harvard cases, and is an automatic 'loss' for the People of our Country!' He went on to claim, 'Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America. Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer.' Questioning how Judge Allison Burroughs came to oversee the matter, the US President further added, 'How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN.' He also signalled a broader move to cut off federal support to the Ivy League institution, saying, 'The Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard, much of which had been given without explanation. It is a longtime commitment to Fairness in Funding Education, and the Trump Administration will not stop until there is VICTORY.' During a two-hour hearing on Monday, Judge Burroughs seemed doubtful of the administration's case and suggested that the IVY might prevail in the legal battle against the Trump administration. She didn't give a ruling but questioned the government's arguments as both sides asked for a quick decision, as per the New York Times. In the hearing that took place in a Boston court, Burroughs questioned the justice department's efforts to cut off billions in medical research funding, pressing for explanations on how such funding withdrawal decisions were linked to civil rights of Jewish people. She challenged the rationale behind the move, warning of 'staggering' constitutional implications if the executive branch could penalise a university without proper process. 'What I'm wrestling with is this idea that the executive branch can decide what is discriminatory or racist,' she said, 'these ad hoc decisions without any procedure around ad hoc decisions without any procedure around it.' The battle between the IVY and Trump administration that has lasted almost since his term in office. Harvard sued the Trump administration two months ago, alleging that the government violated its First Amendment rights by conditioning federal funding on the university's compliance with politically driven demands. At the centre of the dispute is whether the administration bypassed established rules in a rush to defund the school. Justice department lawyer Michael Velchik defended the administration's stance, arguing that the government has the authority to determine where taxpayer money goes. But Harvard has rejected claims that it supports discrimination. Steven Lehotsky, representing the university, told the court the administration's actions were a 'blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment.' He also pointed out the government's departure from normal procedures in its attempt to punish Harvard. Judge Burroughs also indicated that the case may hinge not only on constitutional principles but also on whether due process was followed.
India Today
15 hours ago
- Politics
- India Today
Trump rages at Obama-appointed judge as Harvard's cancelled funding case unfolds
US President Donald Trump launched a blistering attack Monday on a federal judge overseeing a key case involving Harvard University, claiming she is biased and threatening to cut billions of dollars in federal funding to the elite Ivy League a Truth Social post, Trump took aim at the judge -- an Obama appointee -- and said, "She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling. She has systematically taken over the various Harvard cases, and is an automatic 'loss' for the People of our Country!'advertisementThe President's remarks came as Harvard University appeared in federal court to challenge the Trump administration over what it claims was the unlawful cut of $2.6 billion in federal funding. Trump's administration has been pressuring the university for months, accusing it of being too liberal and antisemitic, and taking action against it as part of a broader campaign. Trump further alleged the university is "anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America," and questioned how such a judge ended up with the high-profile case. 'How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases?" he TARGETS HARVARDThe president also zeroed in on Harvard's sizeable endowment, which currently exceeds $50 billion. "Harvard has $52 Billion dollars sitting in the Bank," he wrote, claiming the university has benefited disproportionately from taxpayer money. "Much of this money comes from the USA, all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer."Trump made clear he expects an unfavourable ruling — and a swift response. "When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN.""The Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard, much of which had been given without explanation," he said. "The Trump Administration will not stop until there is VICTORY."The country's oldest and richest university has become a focus of the Trump administration's campaign to leverage federal funding to force change at US universities, which Trump says are gripped by antisemitic and "radical left" ideologies. - EndsWith inputs from Reuters Tune InMust Watch
The Hill
16 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump knocks Harvard case judge: ‘Total disaster'
President Trump went on Truth Social Monday to criticize the judge presiding over a long-anticipated hearing over his administration's battle with Harvard University. Harvard is suing the administration over the pause it put on nearly $3 billion of federal research funding, which came after it rejected a list of demanded changes from the White House. 'The Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed Judge. She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling. She has systematically taken over the various Harvard cases, and is an automatic 'loss' for the People of our Country!' the president posted. Federal Judge Allison Burroughs is presiding over the case after previously ruling for Harvard and against the administration after the Department of Homeland Security tried to take away the university's ability to enroll or keep its foreign students. Burroughs has not yet released a ruling from the Monday hearing on the paused federal funding. 'Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America. Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer. How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN,' Trump continued. He had previously indicated that some kind of deal with Harvard was near, but there have been no confirmed developments toward any such agreement. The outcome of the funding case could have widespread impact on other higher education institutions, which are watching it closely. The Trump administration argues it can withhold the funding after determining Harvard has violated the civil rights of Jewish students by failing to protect them from antisemitism. Harvard says the federal government is violating its First Amendment and retaliating against the institution.
