Harvard sues Trump administration over funding cuts

Harvard University sued the Trump administration on Monday, challenging the White House’s decision to cut more than $2 billion in federal funding.

In a statement announcing the lawsuit, Harvard President Alan Garber said the university chose to oppose the administration’s “unreasonable demands to control who we hire and what we teach” through an antisemitism task force.

Harvard’s administration said the White House’s demands “would impose unprecedented and inappropriate control over the university” and came without a genuine effort to address antisemitism.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Massachusetts.

In response to the lawsuit, White House spokesman Harrison Fields said, “Federal aid to institutions like Harvard, which enrich their overpaid bureaucrats with the taxes of struggling American families, is ending. Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard is not meeting the basic conditions required to access that privilege.”

The Trump administration reviewed approximately $9 billion in grants and contracts with the university, alleging that the treatment of Jewish students, including during the Gaza occupation protests that shook campuses nationwide last year, violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

The administration has already withdrawn more than $2 billion in federal funds from the school and is considering withdrawing another $1 billion in grants.

In addition, the Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the university’s tax-exempt status, and the Department of Homeland Security has threatened to revoke Harvard’s ability to enroll international students, who make up approximately 27% of Harvard’s total enrollment. The Department of Education has also reviewed the university’s federal funding.

Garber said, “These actions will have very serious real-world consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the position of American higher education in the world.”

The lawsuit alleges that the federal government launched a broad attack on billions in research funding at Harvard and a number of other institutions “with very little warning and even less explanation.”

Lawyers for the institution said the federal government was “using federal funds as leverage to seize control of the academic decision-making process at Harvard.”

Earlier this month, the administration had demanded that, to avoid losing funds, the institution reform its governance, change hiring and admissions policies, report foreign and green card students for “behavioral violations,” have academic programs or departments audited for antisemitism by an outside party, end diversity programs, and reform student disciplinary procedures, among other conditions.

“Ultimately, the trade-off imposed on Harvard and other universities is clear: allow the government to oversee your academic institution or jeopardize the institution’s ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions,” the lawsuit stated, adding that the freezing of extensive research funds “had nothing to do with antisemitism.”

Among the lawyers representing Harvard are Republicans and those connected to the Trump administration. These lawyers include Robert Hur, William Burck, Steven Lehotsky, who clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and Scott Keller, who previously served as Solicitor General of Texas.

The lawyers argue that the administration’s actions violated First Amendment and Title VI compliance procedures that should have occurred before federal funding was revoked.

The university argued that the government “made no effort to follow these procedures,” such as attempting to secure voluntary compliance, holding a hearing, and issuing a findings report, before freezing or terminating its funds.

The lawyers also said the freezing of funds would force the school to reduce or halt ongoing research projects, terminate employment contracts, and make cuts to departments and programs.

If Harvard were to continue using its own resources instead of federal funds, the school would need to reduce the number of graduate students it admits and the number of faculty and research staff.

They also argued that this situation could economically harm the Boston area, as the university is one of Massachusetts’ largest employers.