Harvard University is suing the Trump administration over its threat to cut nearly $9 billion in federal funding tied to demands that the university overhaul its diversity, equity and inclusion DEI programs, ban protest masks, and cooperate with immigration enforcement. The administration’s letter, sent on March 31, demanded Harvard comply with sweeping conditions—including limiting student and faculty influence on governance, reporting foreign students who violate rules, and hiring an external auditor to ensure “viewpoint diversity,” a term broadly interpreted to mean including conservative perspectives. Harvard refused, calling the demands unlawful government overreach into academic freedom and free speech.
In response, Harvard faculty groups, including the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and its Harvard chapter, filed a federal lawsuit in Massachusetts seeking to block the funding cuts. The lawsuit accuses the administration of blackmail and unconstitutional retaliation against protected speech, stating the government is effectively putting “a gun to the head” of the university. Harvard President Alan Garber condemned the administration’s approach, emphasizing that no government should dictate private universities’ teaching, admissions, hiring, or research agendas. He acknowledged efforts to combat antisemitism but rejected the administration’s sweeping demands as an attempt to control intellectual conditions rather than address hate.
The Trump administration swiftly acted to freeze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million in contracts after Harvard’s refusal, marking a significant escalation in federal pressure on elite universities accused of tolerating antisemitism and failing to curb campus protests related to the Israel-Gaza conflict, similar actions have targeted other institutions like Columbia University, which lost $400 million in funding after agreeing to reforms under government pressure.
Rivals of the administration strategies contend that reducing money without following the proper procedures jeopardizes important research and educational initiatives and erodes legal protections, according to Harvard's lawsuit, the administration imposed politically driven requirements unrelated to real discrimination investigations, so abusing its civil rights enforcement authority under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, in a statement on behalf of the faculty, Harvard law professor Andrew Manuel Crespo emphasized the need to safeguard academic freedom and constitutional rights against governmental reprisals stemming from differences of opinion.
In response, Harvard faculty groups, including the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and its Harvard chapter, filed a federal lawsuit in Massachusetts seeking to block the funding cuts. The lawsuit accuses the administration of blackmail and unconstitutional retaliation against protected speech, stating the government is effectively putting “a gun to the head” of the university. Harvard President Alan Garber condemned the administration’s approach, emphasizing that no government should dictate private universities’ teaching, admissions, hiring, or research agendas. He acknowledged efforts to combat antisemitism but rejected the administration’s sweeping demands as an attempt to control intellectual conditions rather than address hate.
The Trump administration swiftly acted to freeze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million in contracts after Harvard’s refusal, marking a significant escalation in federal pressure on elite universities accused of tolerating antisemitism and failing to curb campus protests related to the Israel-Gaza conflict, similar actions have targeted other institutions like Columbia University, which lost $400 million in funding after agreeing to reforms under government pressure.
Rivals of the administration strategies contend that reducing money without following the proper procedures jeopardizes important research and educational initiatives and erodes legal protections, according to Harvard's lawsuit, the administration imposed politically driven requirements unrelated to real discrimination investigations, so abusing its civil rights enforcement authority under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, in a statement on behalf of the faculty, Harvard law professor Andrew Manuel Crespo emphasized the need to safeguard academic freedom and constitutional rights against governmental reprisals stemming from differences of opinion.
