The Trump administration and Harvard University continued their legal battle in federal court Monday, as both sides argued over the administration’s decision to freeze roughly $2.6 billion in federal funding to the university.
The case stems from a lawsuit filed by Harvard in April, accusing the administration of unlawfully withholding funds. The Ivy League university argued the freeze was an unconstitutional attempt by the federal government to assert “control” over academic institutions. In turn, the Trump administration has accused Harvard of “fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” while also alleging the university failed to comply with federal directives to address these issues.
Both Harvard and the Justice Department have asked US District Judge Allison Burroughs to issue a summary judgment by early September, seeking to avoid a drawn-out trial before the start of the new academic year.
At Monday’s hearing, Harvard attorney Steven Lehotsky argued that the funding cuts violate the First Amendment and Title VI protections, asserting the administration is trying to force political compliance by using financial leverage. He reiterated the university’s claim that the Trump administration is waging a “pressure campaign” aimed at shaping academic programs.
Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik countered that the federal government has “every right” to suspend funding, maintaining that Harvard failed to adhere to the administration’s directives regarding antisemitism on campus.
“Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,” Velchik said. “The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.”
President Donald Trump weighed in on the dispute Monday on social media, vowing that the administration would appeal any unfavorable ruling. He also accused Harvard of being “anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,” despite its $52 billion endowment.
“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 claimed.
Judge Burroughs said she would take the matter under advisement and did not offer a specific timeline for a ruling. According to a report by Fox News, the Obama-appointed judge appeared skeptical of several government arguments during the hearing. Burroughs noted doubts she had about the government’s “ad hoc” decisions to cut billions in grant funding without evidence or a procure to “suss out” if the university has taken steps to combat antisemitism and comply with the government’s guidance.
“The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,” she told Velchik during the hearing. “I don’t think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech.”
