Lawyers for Harvard University and the Trump administration sparred in federal court in Boston on Monday over the administration’s decision to slash roughly $2.6 billion in federal research funding for the university – the latest in a series of high-stakes court clashes that have pitted the Trump administration against the nation’s oldest university.
Harvard sued the Trump administration in April over the funding freeze, which it described in its lawsuit as an unlawful and unconstitutional effort to assert federal ‘control’ over elite academic institutions, according to a filing submitted to U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs.
The Trump administration, for its part, has accused Harvard of ‘fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,’ and refusing to comply with demands from a federal antisemitism task force sent to the university earlier this year.
Both sides have asked Burroughs, an Obama appointee, to issue a summary judgment by early September, which could allow them to avoid a lengthy trial before the start of the new school year.
In court on Monday, Harvard lawyer Steven Lehotsky argued that the funding cuts are an illegal attempt by the Trump administration to coerce the university into complying with the administration’s policies and violate the First Amendment and Title VI protections.
Lawyers for Harvard have argued that the Trump administration’s actions amount to an unconstitutional ‘pressure campaign’ to influence and exert control over its academic programs, which Lehotsky echoed on Monday.
He told Burroughs the funding freeze is an attempt by the Trump administration to control the ‘inner workings’ of the university, and one he argued could cause lasting damage.
He pointed to earlier claims from Harvard that the administration ‘fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.’
‘By accepting federal funds, Harvard agreed to abide by the provisions in Title VI and the relevant agencies’ corresponding regulations,’ lawyers for the university said in filing the lawsuit earlier this year.
But Harvard’s agreement, they said, does not constitute a ‘blank check for agencies to impose the government’s recent, unrelated demands as a condition of continued funding.’
Meanwhile, Michael Velchik, a lawyer for the Justice Department, countered that the administration has ‘every right’ to cancel the funding, which they sought to frame as a mere contract issue and one that should be heard in a different court.
The Justice Department also reiterated that they see Harvard’s actions as violating the administration’s order combating antisemitism.
‘Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,’ Velchik said on Monday. ‘The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.’
President Donald Trump signaled dissatisfaction with the hearing on Monday – vowing on social media to appeal any ruling against the administration to a higher court.
He also took aim at Burroughs. ‘How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases?’ he said on Truth Social, ‘When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN,’
Trump further took aim at Harvard, accusing the university of being ‘anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,’ despite having ‘$52 billion’ sitting in the bank.
‘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,’ Trump said.
Burroughs ended Monday’s hearing by saying she would take the case under advisement, and would issue a ruling after she had sufficient time to weigh the matters presented by the administration and the university.
She did not offer a timeframe for when she planned to rule on the matter.
Still, the judge appeared skeptical during the hearing of some Trump administration claims, including how it could make such wanton cuts to university funding.
At one point, Burroughs noted to Velchik that she had doubts about the government’s so-called ‘ad hoc’ decisions to cut billions in grant money without providing further evidence, documentation or procedure to ‘suss out’ whether the university or its administrators had taken sufficient steps to combat antisemItism or comply with the guidance handed down by the Trump administration.
‘The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,’ she told Velchik at one point during the hearing.
‘I don’t think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech.’
Since Trump took office in January, the administration has targeted the university with investigations from six separate federal agencies.
It has also sought to ban Harvard’s ability to host international students by attempting to revoke its certification status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) – a program led by the Department of Homeland Security that allows universities to sponsor international students for U.S. visas.
Burroughs in June issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from immediately revoking its SEVP credentials, siding with Harvard in ruling that the university would likely suffer ‘immediate and irreparable harm’ if the action was enforced.
Harvard, meanwhile, has signaled no plans to stand down in its fight with the Trump administration.
‘Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else,’ Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said in a radio interview earlier this summer discussing the administration’s actions.