Harvard University and the Trump administration are locked in a high-stakes legal dispute over $2.5 billion in frozen federal grants, with a pivotal hearing set for Monday before U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston.
The conflict centers on the administration’s demands for Harvard to overhaul its hiring, admissions, and teaching practices to combat alleged antisemitism and eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
Harvard argues these actions infringe on its constitutional rights and threaten critical research.
The Trump administration’s decision to freeze $2.5 billion in grants stems from allegations that Harvard has not adequately addressed alleged antisemitism on campus.
The White House has also moved to restrict Harvard’s access to a visa system for international students and increased the federal excise tax on the university’s $53 billion endowment to 8% from 1.4%.
Harvard contends these measures are punitive and violate free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution.
The university has requested a summary judgment to swiftly resolve the dispute, citing the potential disruption to hundreds of research projects, including those on cancer and Parkinson’s disease.
This legal battle is part of a wider effort by the Trump administration to pressure Ivy League institutions, which it claims are influenced by “radical left” ideologies.
Similar actions have targeted Columbia University, which faced threats to its accreditation and funding.
Harvard’s President Alan Garber has warned that the administration’s actions could cost the university nearly $1 billion annually, forcing layoffs and hiring freezes.
The administration, however, insists that federal funding comes with conditions, including compliance with government policies on campus governance.
Monday’s hearing is unlikely to yield an immediate ruling, but Harvard has urged Judge Burroughs to decide by September 3, when the administration’s deadline to wind up financial obligations takes effect.
Both sides anticipate appeals, potentially escalating the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The outcome could set a precedent for the balance between federal oversight and university autonomy, with significant implications for academic freedom and research funding across the U.S.harvard