In a packed federal courtroom in Boston on Monday, legal representatives for Harvard University argued against the federal government’s decision to freeze over $2 billion in grants and contracts, labeling the action as illegal and calling for it to be reversed.
Harvard’s lawyers voiced concerns that the funding cuts, implemented by the Trump Administration, pose a significant threat to critical research in fields such as medicine, science, and technology.
The university has initiated a lawsuit to prevent the administration from withholding federal funding as a means to exert control over Harvard’s academic decision-making.
The Trump Administration contends that the freeze is a response to Harvard’s alleged violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, claiming the university has failed to adequately address antisemitism on its campus.
Judge Allison D. Burroughs, presiding over the case, seemed skeptical of the administration’s argument during the hearing, questioning the link between cancer research and antisemitism.
Michael Velchik, the sole attorney representing the Trump administration in court and a Harvard alumnus, asserted that the government has the authority to cancel grants if an institution does not align with its priorities.
He maintained that combating antisemitism is a priority for the administration and characterized the dispute as mainly financial, suggesting the government could allocate research funds to other institutions instead.
“Harvard wants billions of dollars. That’s the only reason we are here. They want the government to write a check,” Velchik stated.
As the hearing concluded, Judge Burroughs indicated that she would need time to review the documentation from both sides before reaching a decision, although the timeline for her ruling remains uncertain.
Following the hearing, President Donald Trump took to social media to express his discontent with Judge Burroughs, whom he described as a “TOTAL DISASTER.”
He criticized her appointment by President Obama, remarked on his intent to cease funding for Harvard, and indicated that he would redirect those funds to other colleges and universities.
Trump further noted that should the ruling be unfavorable, they would “IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN.”
Legal experts consulted by NPR do not anticipate a swift resolution to the case, given the high likelihood of appeals regardless of Judge Burroughs’ decision.
Outside the courthouse, approximately a hundred Harvard alumni, students, and supporters gathered to rally in support of the university.
James McAffrey, a Harvard senior studying government and co-founder of the student group Students for Freedom, expressed his view that President Trump’s actions are fundamentally wrong.
“I’m from Oklahoma, a very red state, I’m a very proud American. I believe in freedom of speech. I believe in the American dream,” McAffrey said.
He stressed the importance of research funding, noting its wider impact beyond Harvard and into communities like Oklahoma City.
Colleges and universities across the nation are closely monitoring this case as similar funding freezes affect dozens of other institutions, totaling millions in federal grants.
Jodie Ferise, a lawyer specializing in higher education representation in Indiana, emphasized the significance of the case for the broader higher education landscape.
“There is nothing different about Harvard University than there is about some Midwestern, smaller private college,” Ferise stated, highlighting the concern regarding potential federal control over educational institutions.
Throughout the hearing, Harvard’s legal team articulated multiple arguments.
The first pertains to a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which stipulates that federal agencies may not alter procedures abruptly and without justifying reasons.
Harvard’s lawyers argue that the proper processes established by Congress for revoking federal funding based on discrimination concerns were not followed.
Furthermore, they assert that the government failed to adhere to correct protocols in addressing the alleged violation of federal civil rights law.
This line of argumentation aligns with numerous other lawsuits filed against the Trump administration, with over 100 cases citing violations of the APA, as reported by the nonprofit Just Security.
Harvard also contests the lack of any rational connection between allegations of antisemitism and the suspension of critical medical and scientific research.
“The Government has not—and cannot—identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation,” the complaint states.
Additionally, Harvard asserts that the government is violating the First Amendment by attempting to influence the university’s hiring practices, admission processes, and access to student records without due process.
The Trump administration, in contrast, argues that Harvard has neglected its duty to protect its Jewish students.
After the university failed to meet a set of demands, the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism—comprised of representatives from the Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services departments—initiated the freeze on federal funds.
Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, commented on the situation: “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.
Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to access that privilege.”
The administration argues that because Harvard has allegedly failed to comply with federal laws addressing antisemitism and engaged in illegal discrimination through its diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, it is not entitled to receive these valuable research funding dollars.
Legal experts, including Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, suggest that while the federal government has the authority to impose these funding cuts, the critical question for the court will be whether the Trump administration exercised that power appropriately.
At stake is over $2 billion in funding, which supports more than 900 research projects across Harvard and its affiliated institutions.
These projects encompass crucial studies on topics such as Alzheimer’s prevention, cancer treatment, national security military research, and the psychological effects of school closures on children.
Professor Kari Nadeau, an expert in allergy research from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, highlighted the severe impact of losing her $12 million grant, which she stated has halted vital studies.
Nadeau explained that the disruptions have far-reaching consequences for not just her work, but also for colleagues, teams, trainees, and the families involved in clinical trials.
“When you take a therapy away from people, especially in this case, children, and you put them at risk for a near-fatal disease like a food allergy, that is a safety issue,” Nadeau asserted, illustrating the urgency of the situation.
The future of her projects hinges largely on the outcome of the ongoing case, leaving her cautiously optimistic amidst the uncertainty.
Experts believe that Harvard may have a solid case against the federal government, given the multitude of legal implications involved.
image source from：npr
