Harvard Sues Trump Administration Over $2.2 Billion Funding Freeze

On Monday, Harvard filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration for allegedly engaging in an arbitrary and unconstitutional campaign to "punish Harvard for protecting its constitutional rights" as a result of the university's multibillion-dollar funding cuts.

The move comes just a day after it was reported that the Trump administration was going to cut Harvard another $1 billion in federal grants and contracts. This would be on top of the $2.2 billion cut that was made last week.

As Harvard fights the devastating multi-agency campaign of the Trump administration to slash the University's funding in exchange for significant concessions, including agreements to screen international students for their beliefs, federal audits of Harvard's programs, and the installation of administrators who will ensure that the White House's demands are carried out, this also sets in motion a historic legal battle.

In the Monday filing, Harvard's lawyers wrote, "The tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution's ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions."

The 51-page complaint, which was filed in a district court in the United States, asks the court to stop and declare illegal the $2.2 billion freeze, as well as any freezes made in connection with “unconstitutional conditions” in the letters the Trump administration sent to Harvard on April 3 and April 11.

Alan M., president of the university, stated, "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." In a message to Harvard affiliates on Monday afternoon, Garber '76 made the announcement.

Harvard said in the complaint that the administration illegally frozen billions of dollars in research funding to force the University to change its governance, academic programs, and hiring practices. It argued that by "imposing viewpoint-based conditions on Harvard's funding," the freeze violates the First Amendment.

Additionally, the University alleged that the Department of Health and Human Services terminated grants without providing an adequate legal justification, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Harvard's lawyers claimed in a letter that the freeze "has nothing at all to do with antisemitism and Title VI compliance."

“Under whatever name, the Government has stopped providing funds to Harvard as part of its campaign of pressure to get Harvard to give up control of its academic programs to the Government. That alone is a violation of Harvard's constitutional rights," the attorneys continued.

Garber claimed in his message that the second and more assertive set of demands made by the Trump administration on April 11 were part of a campaign against Harvard that used concerns about campus antisemitism as a pretext.

The following is a breakdown of the situation regarding Harvard University's lawsuit against the Trump administration, based on the information that is currently available: The Main Problem: To prevent the federal grant funding of more than $2.2 billion from being frozen, Harvard University has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. A disagreement over the administration's demands for changes to Harvard's policies, particularly those pertaining to campus activism and diversity, led to this action. During campus protests related to the Israel-Gaza conflict, the Trump administration has accused universities, including Harvard, of allowing unchecked antisemitism.

Demands from the Trump Administration: Harvard's admissions policies were among the broad reforms that the administration demanded. It demanded that Harvard conduct an audit of campus diversity views and cease recognizing particular student clubs. Additionally, Harvard was required to conduct a screening of international students for individuals who were "hostile to American values" and to guarantee "viewpoint diversity" among the faculty and students.