Harvard University stepped before a federal court Monday in a legal battle aimed at reversing up to $2.6 billion in federal research funding that was frozen or rescinded under President Trump’s administration, contending the actions were retaliatory and trampled academic freedom.
The hearing in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts featured heated arguments between Harvard’s legal counsel and Justice Department lawyers. Steven Lehotsky, representing Harvard, urged Judge Allison Burroughs to recognize the cuts as an overreach, warning that the removal of federal support threatens vital medical, scientific, and national security research, imperils careers, and risks shuttering labs.
“What’s at stake is our constitutional rights—and the heart of American innovation,” Lehotsky told the court, framing the dispute as a fight over academic independence. Harvard’s lawsuit asserts that federal officials improperly wielded funding to control university policy, following Harvard’s refusal to comply with sweeping government demands tied to accusations of campus antisemitism stemming from the October 2023 Hamas–Israel conflict.
In response, Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik defended the administration’s authority to cancel contracts, citing statutes that allow funding withdrawal for projects inconsistent with federal priorities. He underscored the administration’s view that Harvard tolerated antisemitic rhetoric on campus. But Judge Burroughs pushed back, questioning the absence of proper procedures and documentation for such “ad hoc” decisions, and warning that cutting funds for ideological reasons could violate constitutional protections.
“That raises staggering constitutional concerns. You can’t suppress speech by pulling funding without basis” she remarked, pushing the administration to explain how such actions comply with contract law and First Amendment norms.
The hearing centered on whether the government followed legal protocols in freezing approximately $2.2 billion in research grants and rejecting Harvard’s eligibility for new funding. Harvard is seeking a prompt written ruling, ideally before agency deadlines in early September when canceled projects would otherwise cease.
Support for Harvard has come from across academia: dozens of universities, nonprofits, U.S. states, and professional associations have filed amicus briefs. The American Association of University Professors and Harvard’s faculty chapter have also brought a related suit, gaining widespread backing.
As reverberations spread beyond one campus, scientists at NIH staged protests and released the “Bethesda Declaration,” a dissent letter signed by hundreds—warned that federal research freezes are harming public health and undermining scientific progress.
President Trump, meanwhile, reacted sharply on Truth Social, criticizing Judge Burroughs as “a TOTAL DISASTER,” lambasting Harvard’s leadership and denouncing the Ivy League school as “anti‑Semitic, anti‑Christian, and anti‑America.” He pledged to appeal should the court rule in Harvard’s favor.
As Harvard’s counsel warned of irreversible damage to clinical trials, educational partnerships, and American innovation, the case represents a test of federal power: Can the government weaponize funding to influence university governance and speech? The ruling, expected in the coming weeks, may set a lasting precedent on academic autonomy and the separation of church, state – and science.
NYC Journals 