According to Harvard’s lawsuit, the case concerns the government’s attempts to exert control over academic decision-making at the university by using the withholding of federal funding as pressure. All things considered, Harvard and other institutions are faced with an obvious trade-off: Let the government control your university or risk the institution’s capacity to seek scientific discoveries, medical advancements, and creative solutions.
The American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty branch filed a second complaint against the layoffs, which has been combined with the university’s.
Harvard’s lawsuit alleges that the administration of President Donald Trump launched a campaign of retaliation against the university after it turned down a set of demands in a letter from a federal antisemitic task group dated April 11.
The letter called for significant reforms in the areas of admissions, academics, and campus protests. For instance, if it was discovered that the campus lacked a diversity of perspectives, the letter instructed Harvard to audit the opinions of teachers and students and either recruit additional academics or admit more students. The purpose of the letter was to respond to government charges that the university had allowed anti-Jewish harassment on campus and had turned into a liberal hotbed.
While pledging to combat antisemitism, Harvard President Alan Garber stated that no government should control what private colleges can teach, who they can admit and hire, or what fields of study and research they can pursue.
Trump administration tried to suspend $2.2 billion in research funds on the same day Harvard rejected the demands. The government started terminating contracts with Harvard a few weeks after Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in May that the university would no longer be eligible for new funds.
Individual agencies started issuing letters notifying the termination of the stalled research awards while Harvard contested the funding freeze in court. They pointed to a provision that permits grants to be revoked in the event that they no longer support governmental objectives.
Despite warning that it cannot fully bear the expense of the federal cuts, Harvard, which has the largest endowment in the country at $53 billion, has taken steps to self-fund part of its research.
The institution claimed in court documents that the government does not provide an explanation for how antisemitism is addressed by cutting off money for studies aimed at improving national security, helping veterans, and treating cancer.
The Trump administration claims that the funding were being reviewed even prior to the demand letter being sent in April, and disputes that the cuts were done in retribution. It makes the case that the government has broad authority to terminate contracts for reasons of policy.
The Trump Administration has stated in court filings that it will not provide funding to organizations who do not sufficiently combat antisemitism in their activities.
Harvard’s battle with the federal government is not limited to the research funds. Along with threatening to take away Harvard’s tax-exempt status, the Trump administration has also attempted to stop the university from accepting international students.
Ultimately, the Trump administration formally declared last month that the university had tolerated antisemitism, a move that may ultimately put all of Harvard’s government funding—including federal student loans and grants—at risk. The punishment is commonly known as a “death sentence.”
