BOSTON — Harvard University announced Monday that it filed a lawsuit to halt a federal freeze on more than $2.2 billion in grants after the institution said it would defy the Trump administration’s demands to limit activism on campus.
In a letter to Harvard earlier this month, the Trump administration called for broad government and leadership reforms at the university as well as changes to its admissions policies. It also demanded that the university audit views of diversity on campus and stop recognizing some student clubs.
Harvard President Alan Garber said the university would not bend to the government’s demands. Hours later, the government froze billions of dollars in federal funding.
“The Government has not — and cannot — identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation,†the university wrote in its lawsuit, filed in Boston federal court.
People are also reading…
“Nor has the Government acknowledged the significant consequences that the indefinite freeze of billions of dollars in federal research funding will have on Harvard’s research programs, the beneficiaries of that research, and the national interest in furthering American innovation and progress,†it added.
The Trump administration did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press requesting comment.
Students, faculty and members of the Harvard University community rally Thursday in Cambridge, Mass.
In its letter dated April 11, the administration told Harvard to impose tougher discipline on protesters and to screen international students for those who are “hostile to the American values.â€
It also called for broad leadership reforms at the university, changes to admissions policies and the removal of college recognition for some student clubs. The government also demanded Harvard audit its faculty and student body to ensure wide viewpoints in every department and, if necessary, diversify by admitting additional students and hiring new faculty.
Last Monday, Harvard said it would not comply, citing the First Amendment. The following day, Trump took to his Truth Social platform, questioning whether the university should lose its tax-exempt status “if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’â€
Legal experts are raising red flags as former President Donald Trump clashes with the U.S. judiciary in an escalating showdown. After ignoring…
The Trump administration also threatened to block the university from enrolling international students.
The university frames the government’s demands as a threat not only to the Ivy League school but to the autonomy that the Supreme Court has long granted American universities.
For the Trump administration, Harvard presents the first major hurdle in its attempt to force change at universities that Republicans say have become hotbeds of liberalism and antisemitism.
The conflict is straining the longstanding relationship between the federal government and universities that use federal money to fuel scientific breakthroughs. Long seen as a benefit to the greater good, that money has become an easy source of leverage for the Trump administration.
“Today, we stand for the values that have made American higher education a beacon for the world,†Garber wrote Monday to the Harvard community.
“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,†he wrote. “That is how we achieve academic excellence, safeguard open inquiry and freedom of speech, and conduct pioneering research—and how we advance the boundless exploration that propels our nation and its people into a better future.â€
Trump vs. the courts: Presidential attacks open new front in long battle
Trump vs. the courts: Presidential attacks open new front in long battle
On March 15, three planes left the U.S., bound for a mega-prison in El Salvador. The Trump administration justified the deportation by saying most of the men on the planes were members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) criminal gang.
Lawyers for some of the men say their clients were misidentified as gang members, in many cases, unrelated to TdA. In one case, a lawyer says the tattoo may have been for the popular Real Madrid soccer team.
None of the men had the opportunity to argue against the administration's assertion in court because they were deported under the Alien Enemies Act, which President Donald Trump had . The act gives the government the from hostile nations during wartime or an invasion, without due process.
The U.S. Venezuela or TdA, nor is the gang a country—one of several reasons federal judge James Boasberg ordered the planes to turn around on March 15. Boasberg concluded that the administration to make the deportations.
Despite the order, the planes landed, and the men were taken into the custody of the Salvadoran prison, complete with by Trump . The episode set off a legal and political firestorm over whether the administration had , and what would come next if so.
"If anyone is being detained or removed based on the administration's assertion that it can do so without judicial review or due process," Jamal Greene, a law professor at Columbia, "the president is asserting dictatorial power and 'constitutional crisis' doesn't capture the gravity of the situation."
There are about 1,700 federal judges in the U.S., and all are appointed by presidents and confirmed by the U.S. Senate—not elected, explains. Trump and his allies have argued that it is, in effect, judge, from any district, can overrule the will of the president on a national level.
Skepticism of the federal courts on these grounds is or conservative preoccupation: In the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the 2022 Supreme Court decision that struck down Roe v. Wade, prominent Democrats also . A few even for .
More broadly, presidents have long jockeyed with the courts over power. Franklin D. Roosevelt's to up to 15 justices to add members sympathetic to his New Deal programs is just one memorable example.
However, Trump's attacks on the judiciary are unprecedented in some ways, especially the extent to which they've been directed at individual judges.
Trump has called Boasberg—who was —"a radical left lunatic" and called for his impeachment. Almost immediately, some Republican House members against Boasberg. The effort is unlikely to go far, as it would to convict. Still, some experts see it as an escalation in Trump's . To date, no federal judge "because of dissatisfaction with his or her rulings," a former judge told NPR.
The personalized and agitated tenor around judges has . That was true over the deportation flights.
Congressional Republicans are pursuing legislation that would altogether. On Thursday, Trump also called for the Supreme Court to issue national injunctions.
If either came to fruition, it would massively untether the administration from judicial checks. According to The Washington Post, there are where a federal judge paused or reversed a Trump administration policy. That means about once every four days since Trump's inauguration, that the administration likely broke the law.
Trump officials have , and on March 19 "border czar" Tom Homan said that he will before using it for more deportation flights. But at the same time, Boasberg has ruled that administration lawyers about the deportations or gave "woefully insufficient" answers.
If the Trump administration were to simply begin ignoring the courts, it's unclear what could be done to stop it. —an agency under the Department of Justice. As Vox's Ian Millhiser wrote this week: Trump could simply tell the U.S. attorney general to instruct marshals not to enforce court orders against his administration.
While Congress could impeach Trump if he blatantly ignores the law, that outcome is unlikely for the same partisan reasons that will probably save Boasberg from removal.
Still, some argue that the point isn't necessarily defiance—it may be just as much about the spectacle of defiance and punishment. In a post this week, historian Timothy Snyder more for public consumption than to achieve any discrete immigration enforcement goal.
"They are deliberately associating the law itself with people, the deportees, who they expect to be unpopular," Snyder wrote. "In this way they hope to get popular opinion on their side as they ignore a court order. But if they succeed in making an exception once, it becomes the rule."
was produced by , a nonpartisan, nonprofit news organization that seeks to create and sustain a sense of national urgency about the U.S. criminal justice system, and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
