Harvard to court: Trump administration cut research grants over politics, urges judge to restore funding
Harvard University on Monday asked a federal judge to grant summary judgment in its lawsuit against the administration of President Donald Trump, arguing that the White House illegally and politically motivated the cancellation of billions of dollars in federal research grants. The University contends that the Trump administration’s actions violate federal law and the First Amendment, and that the cuts were part of a broader campaign to punish the institution for resisting government demands.The legal filing, submitted ahead of a key September deadline, urges the court to act swiftly before the university permanently loses access to the frozen funds. Harvard stated that it must liquidate all financial obligations under the canceled grants by September 3, 2025. After that, the government is likely to argue that it cannot reinstate the funding, making a quick ruling essential.White House-directed cuts despite agency concernsAccording to a 62-page court filing reviewed by The Harvard Crimson, Harvard’s attorneys argued that the cuts were imposed under White House direction, bypassing the objections of federal agencies. The university cited internal emails, agency memos, and sworn declarations that, for the first time publicly, revealed how termination letters were reviewed by the White House and how agencies were given strict deadlines to halt grant activity.Harvard’s legal team claimed in the filing that agencies were forced to issue “boilerplate termination letters” under “arbitrary deadlines” despite internal warnings about national security and scientific damage. In one instance, the Department of Defense canceled a Harvard-led project focused on detecting biological threats, even after Pentagon staff warned it posed “grave and immediate harm to national security.“As reported by The Harvard Crimson, a Defense Department official described the canceled project as a “leap-ahead capability” and noted that Harvard’s team was “top performing” in the field. The official’s plea to preserve the research was ultimately overruled by the Secretary of Defense, according to Harvard’s filing.Retaliation claim follows rejection of government demandsThe lawsuit stems from an April 21, 2025 action by Harvard, which came after the federal government imposed a $2.2 billion freeze in research grants. That freeze followed Harvard’s public refusal to comply with a series of White House demands, including a crackdown on campus protests, dismantling diversity programming, and altering hiring and admissions policies. Since then, the Trump administration has canceled an additional $450 million in grants and disqualified the university from future federal funding.Harvard declined to seek a temporary injunction but instead requested a fast-track resolution. “The necessity of an injunction is demonstrated by the Government’s continued attempt to punish Harvard during the pendency of this case by whatever mechanisms it can,” Harvard’s attorneys wrote, as reported by The Harvard Crimson.Antisemitism cited publicly, but Harvard points to reformsFederal officials have cited campus antisemitism and ideological bias as reasons for the funding cuts. However, Harvard countered that it had already taken disciplinary action, restricted protest activity, pledged a viewpoint diversity initiative, and released a 311-page task force report. According to The Harvard Crimson, Harvard has required each of its schools to submit an “action plan” by June 2025 to address the report’s findings.In a parallel case, Harvard is also suing the Department of Homeland Security over efforts to revoke its ability to host international students—threatening the legal status of nearly 7,000 students. That lawsuit remains active following a court-ordered temporary block.President Trump appeared to reference the dispute directly, telling reporters on May 28, “Every time they fight, they lose another $250 million… Harvard wants to fight. They want to show how smart they are and they’re getting their ass kicked,” as quoted by The Harvard Crimson. Harvard cited the remark in its court filing as further evidence of retaliation.
