Harvard University was back in court Monday for a hearing in its funding fight case against the Trump administration, a key step in a battle over restoring more than $2 billion in federal funding for research frozen by the White House this spring.
US District Judge Allison Burroughs heard opposing arguments over whether to reject or allow Harvard’s funding freeze — and offered her own challenges to the government’s legal rationale for implementing their order cutting off federal funds for the elite university.
The hearing marked a critical moment for what’s become the flashpoint of a major clash over academic freedom, federal funding, and campus oversight — and a belief inside the White House that targeting the country’s most elite academic institutions is a winning political issue for President Donald Trump.
Harvard lawyer Steven Lehotsky argued Monday the government is in “blatant and unrepentant violation” of the First Amendment, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Cutting funding under the guise of combatting antisemitism was “arbitrary and capricious,” Lehotsky said.
The cuts will “devastate long-running research projects, eviscerate labs, and hurt careers,” he said.
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS – APRIL 17: Students walk through campus at Harvard University on April 17, 2025 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Trump administration announced that it would block Harvard University from receiving $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million in contracts after the school refused demands to adopt new policies relating to student and faculty conduct, admissions, anti-semitism on campus and DEI. (Photo by Sophie Park/Getty Images)
The Trump administration, meanwhile, says Harvard has failed to address antisemitism on campus in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel and that it is acting within its authority.
“It is the policy of the United States under the Trump Administration not to fund institutions that failed to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,” the administration has argued.
Trump administration lawyer Michael Velchik, himself a Harvard alumnus, framed the lawsuit as a contract dispute, arguing the federal government has the right to terminate the contract. Harvard, he said, “should’ve read the fine print,” which, he said, stated the government could decide providing funding to the university was “no longer aligned with agency priorities,” pointing to a January executive order from Trump on the issue of antisemitism.
Harvard says it is taking substantive steps to address root causes of antisemitism, including updating its rules around using campus space for protests, reviewing disciplinary processes, and expanding training on combating antisemitism.
Noting she is “both Jewish and an American,” Judge Burroughs pressed Velchik repeatedly during the hearing on that argument, questioning the relationship between cutting funding to cancer research and ending antisemitism, appearing to express some misgivings about the administration’s assertions.
“You’re not taking away grants from labs that could have been antisemitic, but just cut off funding in a way one could argue hurts Americans and Jews,” she said.
The government “vehemently disagrees,” viewing combating antisemitism as a “legitimate priority” and the funding cuts within its rights, Velchik responded.
Burroughs pressed Velchik once more.
“How do you know?” she said, adding Harvard has identified antisemitism as a problem on campus and has said it is taking steps to address it, but the government has made “no documentation, no procedure, no process to suss out whether they’ve taken enough steps.” The potential consequences to constitutional law are “staggering to me,” she said. “And I don’t think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech.”
Burroughs later reiterated her concerns: “It’s a little bit mind-boggling,” she told Velchik. “You’re saying they can terminate the contracts if the executive branch doesn’t agree with the viewpoint espoused by the college?”
During the rebuttal portion of the hearing, Velchik recalled his own parents’ wishes for his education. “One of my earliest memories was hearing the word, ‘Harvard.’ I asked my mom, ‘What’s Harvard?’ And she looked at me and told me, ‘If you get into Harvard, your father will cry.’”
“Every hardworking American parent wants their child to go to school, study, work hard, follow the rules, so that they can go to Harvard to get the best education in the world to set them up for success,” he said.
But Harvard, Velchik continued, has been “besieged” by antisemitism over the past two years. “It’s sick. Federal taxpayer dollars should not support this,” he said.
The Trump administration, he said, is not “anti-Harvard.”
“The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard, pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard” and “(wants) a Harvard for all Americans, the best research institution in the world,” Velchik said.
Burroughs asked how Harvard could be the best when the government rescinds $2.2 billion in research funding.
Asked for comment ahead of the hearing, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields told CNN in a statement, “The Trump Administration’s proposition is simple and commonsense: Don’t allow antisemitism and DEI to run your campus, don’t break the law, and protect the civil liberties of all students.”
Fields continued, “We are confident that Harvard will eventually come around and support the president’s vision, and through good-faith conversations and negotiations, a good deal is more than possible.”
Senior White House policy strategist May Mailman echoed Trump’s comments Monday that the administration plans to appeal and take the case to the Supreme Court “when the judge rules against us.”
“The federal government doesn’t have to give taxpayer money to Harvard,” Mailman said on Fox News after the hearing. “Their whole basis of their lawsuit is sort of frivolous.”
In April, the Trump administration wrote to Harvard President Alan Garber demanding governance and leadership reform, merit-based hiring and admissions reform, viewpoint diversity in admissions and hiring, and the discontinuation of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, among other demands.
The administration has terminated $2.4 billion in federal awards for Harvard, representing more than 950 ongoing research projects.
The university says the scientific research being punished by the federal funding freeze has nothing to do with antisemitism, pointing to its cutting-edge cancer prevention and treatment work, efforts to understand neurodegenerative disorders such as like Parkinson’s disease, and boosting awareness and understanding of emerging biological threats.
In one filing from Harvard last month, a Defense Department official told others in the Trump administration that a $12 million biological threat research grant shouldn’t be terminated because it posed “grave and immediate harm to national security.”
Ultimately, Velchik argued for the Trump administration, the case is about money.
Lehotsky, on behalf of Harvard, said it’s about “so much more” for the university and higher education.
A small circle of Harvard leadership and White House officials had been negotiating toward a deal to end multiple legal battles between the administration and the university — including a separate lawsuit against the Trump administration over its decision earlier this year to hastily revoke the school’s ability to enroll international students. Burroughs, of the federal court in Boston, ruled in Harvard’s favor in that case, though the decision didn’t preclude the administration from undertaking a formal review process that could eventually result in the university being unable to host foreign students and scholars.
Trump appeared to indicate that those talks were bearing fruit last month.
“Many people have been asking what is going on with Harvard University and their largescale improprieties that we have been addressing, looking for a solution. We have been working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so,” he said in a June 20 social media post.
But the negotiations appeared to subsequently derail.
Demonstrators hold signs during a “Stand Up For Science” rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, on Friday, March 7.
The administration escalated its battle with the university days later, with an investigation finding the school in “violent violation” of the Civil Rights Act, warning in a letter that a failure to immediately institute change “will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government.”
And days after that, the Department of Homeland Security sent the school administrative subpoenas regarding its Student Visitor and Exchange Program certification, seeking all relevant records, communications and other documents about Harvard’s enforcement of immigration laws.
Harvard has sent some signals it is willing to work with the Trump administration, including earlier this month when The Harvard Crimson reported that websites for Harvard College centers serving minority and LGBTQ students and women disappeared. The White House welcomed that development, viewing it as a goodwill gesture one official described as “good news.”
The Trump administration is in discussions with Columbia University and is on the cusp of a possible multimillion-dollar settlement. A group of Columbia officials attended a Thursday meeting at the White House, where, according to one source familiar with the negotiations, progress was made but a final deal was not inked.
Asked about the state of talks, Trump told CNN on July 4, “I think we’re going to probably settle with Harvard. We’re going to probably settle with Columbia. They want to settle very badly. There’s no rush.”
Asked how much money the settlement would entail, Trump said, “A lot of money.”
Harvard has asked for an expedited final decision from Burroughs, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, in this case and says it must be decided “no later than September 3, 2025, which is the first date by which Harvard must start submitting this paperwork that would finally close out grant funding.”
Burroughs on Monday said she had not yet made a decision in the case but would “get an opinion out as quickly as we can.”
“I think the issue is whether there’s a legitimate relationship between our distaste for discrimination and the approach the administration is taking,” she said.
Shortly after the hearing concluded Monday afternoon, Trump preemptively attacked Burroughs and prejudged the case’s outcome in a post on social media.
“The Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed Judge. She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling,” the president wrote.
He added, “How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN.”
-CNN
