Harvard University has filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging what it calls an “unlawful and unconstitutional” move to slash billions in federal research funding. The lawsuit marks a major confrontation between one of the nation’s most prestigious academic institutions and the federal government.
The legal action follows the Trump administration’s announcement of plans to cut $2.2 billion in research funding from Harvard, accompanied by a fresh warning to withdraw another $1 billion in grants and contracts. Harvard claims that these cuts are being used as leverage to force the university into agreeing to strict federal demands that compromise its academic independence.
According to the 51-page complaint, Harvard believes the administration’s actions are politically motivated and aim to punish the university for defending its constitutional rights. The university’s lawyers say the cuts are tied to demands made by the government in letters sent on April 3 and April 11. These demands include granting federal authorities greater control over academic decisions, auditing programs, monitoring foreign students, and appointing university officials to carry out federal directives.
Harvard argues that the government is attempting to control what the university teaches and who it hires, which it claims is a violation of the First Amendment. “The tradeoff is clear,” Harvard’s legal team stated in the filing. “Allow the government to micromanage your institution, or risk losing the ability to carry out crucial research in medicine, science, and innovation.”
University President Alan M. Garber responded to the funding cuts and lawsuit by stating that Harvard will continue to uphold its responsibilities without improper government interference. He emphasized that academic freedom must be protected and said the administration’s actions are not only unconstitutional but also damaging to the future of research and education in the country.
The lawsuit also accuses federal agencies, particularly the Department of Health and Human Services, of cutting funds without following proper legal procedures, as required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Harvard claims these actions have nothing to do with antisemitism compliance, which the government used as a reason for its April 11 letter, but are instead part of a broader campaign to gain control over university policies.
Garber said the April 11 letter’s demands went far beyond addressing campus antisemitism and instead tried to dictate Harvard’s hiring and academic policies. He also promised that the university would soon release delayed reports from two task forces focused on antisemitism and Islamophobia—reports that federal officials had been pressuring the university to publish.
Interestingly, Harvard has hired attorneys with previous ties to Donald Trump to represent them in this case, including Robert K. Hur, who was appointed to the Department of Justice during Trump’s presidency, and William A. Burck, a former lawyer for the Trump Organisation.
The complaint names several government agencies as defendants, including the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defence, HHS, and the National Institutes of Health. All of these agencies have either been involved in the funding cuts or signed off on the letters that laid out federal demands.
The funding freeze follows a week of back-and-forth between Harvard and the federal government. After Garber rejected the administration’s requests last Monday, the Trump administration moved quickly to impose funding cuts, launch investigations, and even threaten Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
In a surprising twist, just three days before the lawsuit was filed, The New York Times reported that the aggressive April 11 letter may have been sent without proper authorisation and could have been a mistake. But Harvard isn’t taking any chances and has now turned to the courts to resolve the matter.
This is not the first time Harvard has legally challenged the Trump administration. Back in 2021, former university president Lawrence S. Bacow successfully sued the government over a rule that would have stripped visas from international students taking only online classes during the pandemic.
As the battle now moves to the courtroom, all eyes will be on how the legal system responds to what could become one of the most significant clashes between a university and the federal government in recent history.
Disclaimer: This article has been meticulously fact-checked by our team to ensure accuracy and uphold transparency. We strive to deliver trustworthy and dependable content to our readers.
Jon King is an experienced journalist with 3 years of experience in the field. With a strong background in investigative reporting, Jon is known for his in-depth coverage of crime news, finance news, local news, and USA news. Currently working with Mikeandjonpodcast, Jon brings his sharp investigative skills, where he provides timely updates and analysis on a wide range of topics. His commitment to delivering accurate and impactful news has earned him a reputation for providing insightful and comprehensive stories that resonate with his audience.
