Lawyers for Harvard University and the Trump administration faced off in a Boston courtroom, with billions of dollars in US government funding hanging in the balance for the prestigious Ivy League institution. The Trump administration has frozen over $2 billion in federal grants for Harvard, demanding changes to the university’s hiring, admissions, and teaching practices to combat antisemitism and halt diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
During the hearing, Harvard lawyer Steven Lehotsky argued that the administration was attempting to control the “inner workings” of the institution, infringing on its academic freedom and free speech rights. In contrast, government lawyer Michael Velchik claimed that Harvard had violated an executive order signed by President Trump aimed at combating antisemitism. Velchik stated, “Harvard wants billions of dollars and that is the only reason we are here.”
US District Judge Allison Burroughs expressed skepticism about the government’s actions, noting that the administration had provided “no documentation, no procedure” to assess whether Harvard administrators had taken sufficient steps to combat antisemitism. She added, “The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering.”
Harvard’s lawyers have argued that the White House is violating the free speech provisions of the US Constitution by conditioning federal funding on viewpoint-based demands. They claim that the administration’s actions are punitive and “bear no rational connection to the concerns they purport to address.” In a briefing filed in June, Harvard’s lawyers asserted that the university has the right “to decide what to teach, to express certain views, and to petition the courts to defend itself.”
The government, however, maintains that funding comes with “explicit conditions” requiring support for government policies. Lawyers for the US Justice Department wrote, “If [universities] fail to meet these conditions, the grants are subject to cancellation.”
President Trump has suggested that his actions against Harvard are part of a negotiating strategy, stating, “I think we’re probably going to settle with Harvard.” A White House spokesman expressed confidence that Harvard would eventually support the president’s vision through good-faith conversations and negotiations.
The administration’s push against Harvard is part of a broader effort to pressure elite Ivy League universities. Earlier this month, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent subpoenas to Harvard demanding information about international students. President Trump previously suggested ending Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
Columbia University had agreed to several administration demands, including banning face coverings at protests and reviewing admissions policies, after the White House threatened to end $400 million in funding. However, the US Department of Education has since threatened to strip Columbia of its accreditation.
A ruling in the case is unlikely to be made immediately after the one-day hearing, but Harvard lawyers have requested a decision by September 3, the deadline given by the Trump administration for the university to wind up its financial obligations regarding federal grants. Any ruling is likely to be appealed and could ultimately end up before the US Supreme Court.