Harvard sues Trump administration as faculty and students resist demands

Harvard University filed a federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday challenging what it describes as unlawful government overreach into academic decision-making. The suit comes in response to threats to freeze or withdraw billions in federal research funding after the university refused to comply with a set of administration demands.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleges the federal government is attempting to exert “unprecedented control” over Harvard’s hiring, curriculum, and oversight processes under the pretext of combating antisemitism. Harvard President Alan M. Garber said the administration’s demands amounted to “improper control” that would have “severe and long-lasting consequences” for academic freedom.

At the heart of the dispute is a list of demands sent to Harvard earlier this month by a federal antisemitism task force. This included mandatory reporting of international students accused of misconduct, the appointment of an external “viewpoint diversity” overseer, and auditing faculty work for plagiarism. Harvard refused to comply, prompting the Trump administration to impose a freeze on a substantial portion of its federal research grants, particularly those administered by the National Institutes of Health for biomedical and public health research.

In a statement released alongside the lawsuit, Garber emphasized that while Harvard takes allegations of antisemitism seriously, the administration’s approach bypassed due process and constitutional safeguards. 

“The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” Garber said in a university-wide message.

Legal scholars suggest the case will likely hinge on First Amendment protections and long-standing legal precedents governing the relationship between the federal government and educational institutions. The lawsuit quotes the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which emphasized the classroom is a “marketplace of ideas” deserving of constitutional protection.

“This is of momentous, momentous significance,” J. Michael Luttig, a prominent former federal appeals court judge revered by many conservatives, said. “This should be the turning point in the president’s rampage against American institutions.”

Faculty and students have played an active role in shaping Harvard’s response. More than 800 faculty members signed an open letter urging the university to fight the administration’s demands in court. Political science professor Ryan Enos, one of the letter’s organizers, called the legal challenge a “necessary stand against unlawful interference”.

From a legal standpoint, Harvard’s argument also includes claims the administration failed to follow proper administrative procedure. The suit alleges that officials acted without notice or opportunity for the university to respond, violating the Administrative Procedure Act. Additionally, the university argues the government failed to establish any rational link between alleged antisemitic incidents and the academic research funding now under threat.

“Harvard is obviously a particularly powerful institution. And its decision has potential to galvanize other universities into some kind of collective pushback,” David Pozen, a professor of law at Columbia, said.

Critics of the administration’s approach argue the use of antisemitism claims as a justification for unrelated political goals undermines legitimate efforts to combat hate on campus, as is the case with other major universities. 

“We stand against antisemitism. Period. But the Trump administration’s decision last week to arbitrarily cancel some $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University is not the right way to fight hatred,” Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, said.

The lawsuit also highlights broader concerns in academia about rising federal pressure on elite institutions. In recent months, Columbia, Cornell, Northwestern and Princeton have reported similar threats to funding. Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, which receives nearly half its budget from federal grants, has already begun implementing budget cuts in response to the freeze.

“The gravy train of federal assistance to institutions like Harvard, which enrich their grossly overpaid bureaucrats with tax dollars from struggling American families is coming to an end,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields wrote in an emailed statement. “Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to access that privilege” 

To represent the university, Harvard has enlisted attorneys William A. Burck and Robert K. Hur, both of whom previously served in the Trump administration. 

The university is asking the court to expedite proceedings, citing urgent harm to ongoing research programs, including those studying tuberculosis, ALS and radiation exposure.