Harvard University has initiated legal action to counteract a federal freeze on over $2.2 billion in grants, following its decision to resist demands from the Trump administration to limit activism on its campus. The Trump administration previously called for extensive reforms at the university, including changes in admissions policies, an audit of diversity views, and the cessation of recognition for certain student clubs.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues that the government has failed to provide a rational basis linking concerns of antisemitism to the freezing of research funds aimed at enhancing American innovation and security. Harvard contends that the funding freeze infringes on its First Amendment rights and breaches Title VI of the Civil Rights Act while being arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
In a prior letter, the administration insisted on stricter discipline for protesters, screening international students for potential hostility towards American values, and broad reforms in university leadership. It further demanded diversity audits of faculty and students and suggested changes in hiring and admissions to ensure varied viewpoints across departments.
Despite these demands, Harvard has maintained its stance, emphasizing the importance of free speech and academic independence, which it argues are under threat. President Alan Garber declared the university’s commitment to legal obligations and the preservation of academic excellence without undue governmental influence.
The Trump administration has yet to respond to the lawsuit, and the Education Department has declined to comment. Meanwhile, President Trump has questioned Harvard’s tax-exempt status on social media, criticizing the institution for what he perceives as political bias.
The American Association of University Professors has also filed a lawsuit seeking to halt the administration’s review and investigation into Harvard’s funding, citing concerns over legality and due process. Support for Harvard’s legal challenge comes from various academic organizations, including the American Council on Education, which has praised the university’s defense against what it considers unlawful governmental overreach.
Anurima Bhargava, an alumnus advocating for stronger resistance against administrative pressures, commended Harvard’s legal action, labeling the administration’s moves as a dangerous encroachment on academic freedom. The ongoing conflict reflects broader tensions between federal oversight and university autonomy, with significant implications for research funding and educational policies nationwide.
