Administration of Harvard and Trump competing in court for federal research funds

Lawyers from Harvard University and Trump administration argued on Monday before the Boston Federal Court regarding the administration’s decision to reduce around $ 2.6 billion in university research for the university – the last in a series of high -standing court clashes that opposed the Trump administration to the oldest university in the country.

Harvard continued the Trump administration in April for the financing frost, which he described in his trial as an illegal and unconstitutional effort to assert the federal “control” on the university institutions of elite, according to a file subject to the American district judge Allison Burroughs.

The Trump administration, for its part, accused Harvard of “promoting violence, anti -Semitism and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus” and refusing to comply with the requests of a federal working group on anti -Semitism sent to university earlier this year.

The two parties asked Burroughs, one appointed by Obama, to make a summary judgment in early September, which could allow them to avoid a long trial before the start of the new school year.

Continuous justice fights could place Harvard in a non -restable position against Trump

Banners of the Harry Elkins Widener commemorative library on the Harvard University campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 27, 2025. (Sophie Park / Bloomberg)

Harvard lawyer Steven Lehotsky argued that Harvard lawyers argued that financing reductions are an illegal attempt by the Trump administration to force the University to comply with the administration policies and to violate the first amendment and the title VI protections.

Harvard lawyers argued that the Trump administration’s actions constitute an unconstitutional “pressure campaign” to influence and exercise control over its academic programs, which Lehotsky echoes on Monday.

He told Burroughs that the financing freezing is an attempt by the Trump administration to control the “internal functioning” of the university, and the latter he argued could cause sustainable damage.

He underlined the previous allegations of Harvard that the administration “does not explain how the end of research funding to deal with cancer, supporting veterans and improving national security deals with anti -Semitism”.

“By accepting the federal funds, Harvard has agreed to comply with the provisions of title VI and the corresponding regulations of the agencies concerned,” said university lawyers in filing the trial earlier this year.

But the Harvard agreement, according to them, does not constitute a “white check for agencies to impose recent and unrelated government requests as a condition for continuous financing”.

Meanwhile, Michael Velchik, lawyer for the Ministry of Justice, replied that the administration had “all rights” to cancel funding, which they sought to resolve as a simple contract problem and which should be heard by a different court.

Harvard president says he has “no other choice” than to fight the Trump administration

The Trump administration has announced that it was frozen more than $ 2 billion in grants and contracts after Harvard University said it would not comply with federal demands for anti -Semitism. (Reuters / Nicholas Pfosi)

The Ministry of Justice also reiterated that they considered Harvard’s actions as violating the order of the administration which fights against anti -Semitism.

“Harvard says the government is anti-harvard. I reject it,” said Velchik on Monday. “The government is pro-Jewish students in Harvard. The government is a pro-Jewish faculty of Harvard.”

President Donald Trump reported dissatisfaction with the hearing on Monday – producing on social networks to appeal to any decision against the administration before a higher court.

He also targeted Burroughs. “How did this judge hated Trump get these cases?” He said on Truth Social: “When she govern against us, we will immediately call and win”, ”

Trump also targeted Harvard, accusing the university of being “anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-American”, despite having “52 billion dollars” in the bank.

“Much of this money comes from the United States, all at the expense of other schools, colleges and institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to perform,” said Trump.

Burroughs ended the hearing on Monday saying that she would take the case under the opinion and make a decision after having had enough time to weigh the questions presented by the administration and the university.

She did not offer a calendar for when she planned to reign on the issue.

Judges against Trump: here are the main battles of the court prohibiting the agenda of the White House

Harvard president Alan Garber recognizes a long period of applause during the start of Harvard University ceremonies on May 29, 2025 in Cambridge. (AP photo / Charles Krupa)

However, the judge seemed to be skeptical during the hearing of certain complaints from the Trump administration, including the way she could make such free reductions in university funding.

At one point, Burroughs spoke to Velchik that she had doubts about the government’s so -called “ad hoc” decisions to reduce billions of subsidies without providing additional evidence, documentation or procedure to “manage”, that the university or its administrators have taken enough measures to combat anti -Semitism or comply with the advice transmitted by the Trump administration.

“The consequences of this in terms of constitutional law are astounding,” she told Velchik at some point during the hearing.

“I don’t think you can justify a contractual action based on the inadmissible deletion of speech.”

Since Trump took office in January, the administration targeted the university with investigations from six distinct federal agencies.

He also sought to ban Harvard’s ability to welcome international students by trying to revoke his certification status within the framework of the Student and Exchange Visitor program (SEVP) – a program led by the Department of Homeland Security which allows universities to sponsor international students for American visas.

Burroughs in June made a temporary ban prescription preventing the administration from immediately revoking its SEVP skills titles, moving with Harvard, judging that the University would probably suffer “immediate and irreparable damage” if the action was imposed.

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

Harvard, meanwhile, did not report any project to retire in his fight with the Trump administration.

“In the end, it is Trump who tries to impose his world vision on everyone,” said Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, in a radio interview earlier this summer by discussing the actions of the administration.