More than $2 billion in federal funds committed to Harvard University are likely to stay frozen by the Trump administration well into the summer after the sides met for the first time in a Boston courtroom in their high-stakes sparring match over political ideology in American higher education.In a 15-minute hearing Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs, a Barack Obama appointee, set July 21 for oral arguments. Harvard, the nation’s oldest and wealthiest college, has asked for a final decision on an expedited schedule rather than an immediate order to restore the money, meaning the university will be without the grant and contract funds it says are critical for ongoing research for at least the next 12 weeks – unless the White House voluntarily walks back its decision.While Harvard’s lawsuit over the $2.2 billion freeze in federal research funding marked an escalation in the ongoing fight between the White House and higher education, legal observers warn the stakes are much higher as the Trump administration also looks to walk back U.S. institutions’ commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion programs, their rules for campus protests and whom they admit and employ.“How long can we go without investments in universities that produce innovations in health or advances that help us deal with climate change or psychological insight to help our communities thrive?” asked Osamudia James, a law professor at the University of North Carolina whose specialties include administrative law.“Or how long can we survive the erosion of democratic norms, erosions to freedom of expression … the independence of universities? The fight is actually bigger than just, oh, how much money does Harvard have? Or how long can it last, or whether it should be getting these grants. What is at stake here is whether an administration can just do whatever it wants to do and punish entities that they perceive as a threat.”Harvard filed suit a week ago, days after the Trump administration announced it was cutting billions of dollars in grants following what the White House said was a breakdown in discussions over combating antisemitism on campus. The administration has cited discrimination investigations in slashing funding recently for other universities – including Cornell and Northwestern – and sent letters to 60 institutions of higher learning, warning them of potential punishment if they fail “to protect Jewish students on campus.”The White House also has threatened to rescind Harvard’s tax-exempt status and its eligibility to host foreign students.Harvard’s lawsuit lists as defendants the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Department of Education, Department of Justice, General Services Administration, Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.It’s not the first time Burroughs has heard a landmark case involving the preeminent school in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Burroughs, who earned her law degree at the University of Pennsylvania and her bachelor’s at Middlebury College in Vermont, upheld Harvard’s admissions process in a 2019 ruling overturned by the Supreme Court’s landmark decision ending race-conscious admissions in American colleges.The university now not only argues the Trump administration’s “attempt to coerce and control Harvard disregards … fundamental First Amendment principles” but also maintains Washington violated an arcane 1946 law governing administrative policies. In particular, the Administrative Procedure Act “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 Harvard lawsuit says.Before filing its lawsuit, Harvard hired two attorneys with deep Republican connections: William Burck served as a special counsel to President George W. Bush and recently helped law firm Paul Weiss negotiate with the Trump administration to lift an executive order targeting the firm; Robert Hur was appointed special counsel to investigate former President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents and famously referred to Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”“What these guys bring is a solid conservative credential, people who are well known on the right,” said CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers, a lecturer at Columbia Law School. “This gives them, they hope, a better team to go in and try to negotiate a settlement that will be beneficial to Harvard because these guys have credibility within the Trump administration.”The Trump administration as recently as last week said its demands in letters it sent to Harvard were intended as part of an ongoing negotiation process. “We had hoped Harvard would come back to the table to discuss these,” McMahon told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” last Tuesday, adding it is not too late for discussions to resume.Trump administration attorneys have not responded to the allegations in the lawsuit, but White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that same day, “The president has made it quite clear that it’s Harvard who has put themselves in the position to lose their own funding by not obeying federal law, and we expect all colleges and universities who are receiving taxpayer funds to abide by federal law.”
More than $2 billion in federal funds committed to Harvard University are likely to stay frozen by the Trump administration well into the summer after the sides met for the first time in a Boston courtroom in their high-stakes sparring match over political ideology in American higher education.
In a 15-minute hearing Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs, a Barack Obama appointee, set July 21 for oral arguments. Harvard, the nation’s oldest and wealthiest college, has asked for a final decision on an expedited schedule rather than an immediate order to restore the money, meaning the university will be without the grant and contract funds it says are critical for ongoing research for at least the next 12 weeks – unless the White House voluntarily walks back its decision.
Advertisement
While Harvard’s lawsuit over the $2.2 billion freeze in federal research funding marked an escalation in the ongoing fight between the White House and higher education, legal observers warn the stakes are much higher as the Trump administration also looks to walk back U.S. institutions’ commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion programs, their rules for campus protests and whom they admit and employ.
“How long can we go without investments in universities that produce innovations in health or advances that help us deal with climate change or psychological insight to help our communities thrive?” asked Osamudia James, a law professor at the University of North Carolina whose specialties include administrative law.
“Or how long can we survive the erosion of democratic norms, erosions to freedom of expression … the independence of universities? The fight is actually bigger than just, oh, how much money does Harvard have? Or how long can it last, or whether it should be getting these grants. What is at stake here is whether an administration can just do whatever it wants to do and punish entities that they perceive as a threat.”
Harvard filed suit a week ago, days after the Trump administration announced it was cutting billions of dollars in grants following what the White House said was a breakdown in discussions over combating antisemitism on campus. The administration has cited discrimination investigations in slashing funding recently for other universities – including Cornell and Northwestern – and sent letters to 60 institutions of higher learning, warning them of potential punishment if they fail “to protect Jewish students on campus.”
The White House also has threatened to rescind Harvard’s tax-exempt status and its eligibility to host foreign students.
Harvard’s lawsuit lists as defendants the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Department of Education, Department of Justice, General Services Administration, Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
It’s not the first time Burroughs has heard a landmark case involving the preeminent school in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Burroughs, who earned her law degree at the University of Pennsylvania and her bachelor’s at Middlebury College in Vermont, upheld Harvard’s admissions process in a 2019 ruling overturned by the Supreme Court’s landmark decision ending race-conscious admissions in American colleges.
The university now not only argues the Trump administration’s “attempt to coerce and control Harvard disregards … fundamental First Amendment principles” but also maintains Washington violated an arcane 1946 law governing administrative policies. In particular, the Administrative Procedure Act “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 Harvard lawsuit says.
Before filing its lawsuit, Harvard hired two attorneys with deep Republican connections: William Burck served as a special counsel to President George W. Bush and recently helped law firm Paul Weiss negotiate with the Trump administration to lift an executive order targeting the firm; Robert Hur was appointed special counsel to investigate former President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents and famously referred to Biden as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
“What these guys bring is a solid conservative credential, people who are well known on the right,” said CNN legal analyst Jennifer Rodgers, a lecturer at Columbia Law School. “This gives them, they hope, a better team to go in and try to negotiate a settlement that will be beneficial to Harvard because these guys have credibility within the Trump administration.”
The Trump administration as recently as last week said its demands in letters it sent to Harvard were intended as part of an ongoing negotiation process. “We had hoped Harvard would come back to the table to discuss these,” McMahon told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” last Tuesday, adding it is not too late for discussions to resume.
Trump administration attorneys have not responded to the allegations in the lawsuit, but White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that same day, “The president has made it quite clear that it’s Harvard who has put themselves in the position to lose their own funding by not obeying federal law, and we expect all colleges and universities who are receiving taxpayer funds to abide by federal law.”
