On April 21, Harvard sued the Trump administration for its recent infringement on the University’s federal funding. This comes after the Trump administration announced its plans to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants from the institution, shift University hiring practices, and alter school diversity policies. Filed in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, the University argues that the administration has violated the First Amendment and proper legal procedures, overstepping what Harvard views as a necessary separation between government and higher education.
“To date, the Government has—with little warning and even less explanation—slashed billions of dollars in federal funding to universities across America, including Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, and Northwestern,” the complaint reads.
In a message to the Harvard community, University President Alan M. Garber ’76 affirmed the University’s commitment to resisting the presidential administration’s demands. “The law requires that the federal government engage with us about the ways we are fighting and will continue to fight antisemitism. Instead, the government’s April 11 demands seek to control whom we hire and what we teach,” he wrote in reference to earlier actions taken by the Trump administration against the institution.
“Today, we stand for the values that have made American higher education a beacon for the world,” Garber continued. “We stand for the truth that colleges and universities across the country can embrace and honor their legal obligations and best fulfill their essential role in society without improper government intrusion.”
The Trump administration has cited concerns of antisemitism on Harvard’s campus to justify its investigation into American higher education. However, Harvard’s lawsuit argues that the government’s demands overstep such concerns. “The Government has not—and cannot—identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, science, technological and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives,” it reads.
The lawsuit emphasizes that recent White House demands and subsequent funding withdrawal have disregarded legal protocol. Harvard’s response to the initial letter sent by the Trump administration made this clear: the University refused to comply with the government’s demands, despite threats to cut $9 billion in funding. Harvard took legal action in response to threats to lose $2.2 billion in funding after standing its ground.
“Rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism and Title VI compliance,” the lawsuit states, directly addressing the legitimacy of funding cuts.
“The final list of Trump demands was crazy. They might as well have demanded that we change our mascot to the Crimson MAGAs,” an anonymous Harvard College Faculty of Arts and Sciences assistant professor shared in an interview with the Independent.
“What we’ve seen is the administration trying to bring civil society under its thumb in a way that’s reminiscent of authoritarian governments in other countries throughout the world, and Harvard is pushing back against that through this lawsuit, ” Ryan Enos, Professor of Government and Director of the Center for American Political Studies, also told the Independent. “The Trump administration had leveled these demands, which were completely outside of the American tradition of how the government regulates higher education, where they’re asking essentially to take away the independence of Harvard as an institution.”
According to the complaint, the Trump administration infringed upon the institution’s First Amendment rights when it froze billions in an attempt to pressure the University to reform its admissions and hiring practices, academic programs, and governance. These are “viewpoint-based” conditions, meaning such examples are applicable to the ideology and operations of Harvard only.
“The Government’s attempt to coerce and control Harvard disregards these fundamental First Amendment principles, which safeguard Harvard’s ‘academic freedom,’” the document reads.
“The conditions are overbroad because they seek to impose a massive consequence unless an enormous amount of constitutionally protected academic freedom is curtailed,” the complaint continues. “The conditions are also overbroad because Defendants have ignored less restrictive alternatives.”
This statement shows that Harvard stands to defend the freedom its students, faculty, and researchers have been able to exercise by having access to funding that allows them to pursue their interests. The lawsuit also states that the Defendants—the Trump Administration—have ignored meaningful negotiations, meaning Harvard’s funding was explicitly targeted in this attack.
“Even if a freeze were warranted, which it is not, the Government has not explained why a more targeted reduction, tailored to the programs and purported discrimination at issue, would have been insufficient to achieve its objectives,” the lawsuit continues.
The two Harvard professors echo the document’s words.
“Even if there are important ways that Harvard needs to get better, the list of demands clearly signaled that the administration wasn’t interested in meaningful negotiations,” the anonymous professor shared.
The lawsuit proceeds to discuss why Harvard’s research programs remain paramount to the nation’s academic prosperity. “Harvard’s researchers, in collaboration with the federal Government, have pioneered groundbreaking innovations that make millions of people in our country healthier and safer across a wide range of medical, engineering, scientific, and other fields,” it reads.
Harvard listed eight fields of study in which the University has offered groundbreaking advancements. These include research in cancer, infectious diseases, microbiomes, toxin reduction, neurology, biotechnology, technology, and national security advancements. “Since its founding nearly four centuries ago, Harvard’s students, faculty, and researchers have helped identify and solve some of society’s most pressing problems,” the lawsuit states. According to the University, proposed funding cuts place at risk not only the scientific excellence of Harvard but also society as a whole.
Recent changes to the University’s website homepage reflect this growing emphasis on research. “Research Powers Progress,” the front page header firmly reads. “Research at Harvard…touches countless lives, moving us closer to disease cures, next-generation technology, and a more secure future for millions of people,” the subheading continues. Beyond this opening affirmation, exploration remains at the forefront—the page highlights everything from technology designed to help stroke survivors developed at the Harvard Move Lab to an analysis on the rise in chronic absenteeism among American students.
The lawsuit also rests on the Administrative Procedure Act. This statute “requires this Court to hold unlawful and set aside any final agency action that is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’” The Trump administration’s rapid set of demands, Harvard argues, illegally disregarded such proceedings.
“The Government wielded the threat of withholding federal funds in an attempt to coerce Harvard to conform with the Government’s preferred mix of viewpoints and ideologies,” the document reads. Words like “threat,” “coerce,” and “conform” illustrate the institution’s frustration and motivation to pursue such punitive actions.
Moreover, the suit claims that the administration failed to follow the proper legal procedures for suspending university funding under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In other words, the University believes there are legal procedures the government must “satisfy before revoking federal funding based on discrimination concerns.” The Trump administration, Harvard claims, “made no effort to follow these procedures” before halting funds.
“[The lawsuit] is less about a message and more about an actual, lawful means to make them stop when the government oversteps its bounds,” Enos said regarding the lawsuit’s intentions.
The end of the complaint makes such intentions clear—Harvard has clear requests for the government and for the District Court. “This Court should declare that Defendants’ actions are ‘in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right’” it says. “The Court should postpone the effective date of the freeze.”
“If Defendants’ actions are not declared unlawful, set aside, and enjoined, Harvard will suffer substantial irreparable injury.”
Ultimately, freedom is at the heart of this legal battle between Harvard versus the Trump administration. “This case involves the Government’s efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision making at Harvard,” the lawsuit reads.
While other universities have also faced funding cuts, Harvard is the first university to not only push back but also take legal action against the Trump administration. “[Harvard] has a responsibility, in many ways, to be the one that can lead the charge…we would hear from people across the country to say they were waiting for Harvard to stand up and to speak out against these things,” Enos said.
Harvard is uniquely situated to afford funding cuts and expensive litigation given its $53.2 billion endowment—the largest of any university in the world. “When you’re the face of higher education, when you have that leadership role, I think you have a duty to fill it, and fortunately, Harvard has done that right now,” Enos continued.
Despite the intensity of the conflict, the anonymous professor nonetheless encouraged each individual to do their own research. “I encourage my students to look at the data,” they said. “Read the list of demands. Read the legal complaints, filed by and filed against Harvard. Decide which side is right, on what parts of the issue. Our students are smart enough to decide how they want to react to the lawsuit.”
“Everyone and every institution has a responsibility to decide what is right and decide what they’re willing to do in order to stick to their principles. Everyone is in that position, whether they want to be or not, regardless of endowment size or status,” the anonymous professor added.
Garber acknowledged the heavy precedent this action may set. However, he and the University as a whole is prepared to take this firm step in pursuit of upholding the institution’s values.
“We acknowledge that we have unfinished business,” he wrote. “The time ahead will demand much from each of us, but I am as confident as ever in our ability to meet our challenges with integrity and resolve, our minds set on the work before us and our hearts committed to the future of our beloved University.”
“It’s important for students to understand that this is a pretty momentous occasion that we’re living through, not only for students at Harvard…this is in many ways a defining moment in the constitutional order of the United States,” Enos said. “This is a moment when people should be active and involved in what’s going on in the world, because it could have pretty profound implications for the future.”
Harvard has requested an expedited resolution, and the hearing has been set for July 21 at the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse in Boston. U.S. District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs, appointed by former President Barack Obama, will preside over the case.
Meena Behringer ’27 (meenabehringer@college.harvard.edu), Cara Cronin ’28 (caracronin@college.harvard.edu), and Olivia Lunseth ’28 (olivialunseth@college.harvard.edu) write News for the Independent.