Harvard Battles Trump Administration in Court Over $2.6 Billion Federal Funding Cut Amid Antisemitism Allegations

Harvard University

Harvard University appeared in federal court on Monday to challenge a $2.6 billion funding freeze imposed by the Trump administration, marking a high-stakes legal showdown that could redefine the boundaries of federal oversight in higher education.

The university accuses the administration of unlawfully cutting research grants in retaliation for Harvard’s resistance to sweeping demands imposed by a federal antisemitism task force. In court, Harvard attorney Steven Lehotsky argued the federal government is interfering with the institution’s academic independence and warned the funding cuts could cripple research programs, damage scientific careers, and lead to lab closures.

“It’s not about Harvard’s conduct,” said Lehotsky. “It’s about the government’s conduct toward Harvard.”

The case is being heard by U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, who has previously ruled against Trump administration efforts to block international students from studying at Harvard. On Monday, Harvard urged the judge to reverse the funding freezes, which have already disrupted hundreds of medical and scientific research projects.

Representing the government, attorney Michael Velchik defended the cuts, stating the Trump administration acted within its authority to redirect federal funds based on shifting priorities, including the enforcement of an executive order to combat antisemitism. Velchik accused Harvard of fostering an environment where antisemitism flourished after the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, citing campus protests and alleged attacks on Jewish students.

“Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,” said Velchik, a Harvard graduate. “The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.”

Protestors gather outside the Moakley Federal Courthouse, where Harvard University appeared to challenge $2.6 billion in funding cuts by the Trump administration, Monday, July 21, 2025, in Boston

Judge Burroughs, however, expressed skepticism about the administration’s justification for the funding cuts. She challenged the lack of evidence and due process surrounding the termination of research grants and questioned whether the action was a veiled attempt to suppress free speech.

“The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,” Burroughs said. “I don’t think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?”

Velchik maintained that the case was simply about how the government allocates taxpayer dollars. But Harvard insists it was punished for rejecting the task force’s April 2024 demands, which included auditing faculty and student viewpoints and modifying admissions and hiring to include more ideological diversity.

Harvard President Alan Garber responded that the university has taken steps to combat antisemitism, but warned that no administration should dictate what private universities teach, whom they admit, or what they research.

A ruling was not issued from the bench, but Judge Burroughs is expected to decide the case in writing.

Outside the courthouse, Harvard faculty, students, and alumni rallied in protest of the funding cuts. Signs reading “Hands Off Harvard” and “Our Liberty Is Not For Sale” were held by demonstrators, including Anurima Bhargava, who filed an amicus brief representing over 12,000 alumni.

Three Harvard researchers also spoke at the rally, highlighting the long-term damage to cancer and cardiovascular research. Epidemiologist Walter Willett warned that U.S. public health could suffer if researchers are forced to take their work abroad.

“This is just one example of the arbitrary and capricious weaponization of taxpayer money that is undermining the health of Americans,” Willett said.

The funding freeze began after Harvard refused to comply with the task force’s demands. Education Secretary Linda McMahon subsequently barred the university from receiving new grants. Federal agencies then began canceling existing contracts, citing policy misalignment. In response, Harvard has tried to self-fund some of its research but warned its $53 billion endowment cannot cover the massive shortfall.

The lawsuit also argues the administration failed to explain how cutting research on cancer, veterans’ care, and national security helps address antisemitism.

The battle over research funding is only one front in an escalating conflict. The Trump administration has also attempted to block Harvard from hosting foreign students, and has threatened the university’s tax-exempt status. Most recently, the administration issued an official finding that Harvard tolerated antisemitism—a move that could eventually cut off all federal funds, including student loans and grants, in what’s known as a “death sentence.”

Following the hearing, Trump lashed out on his social media platform, calling Judge Burroughs a “TOTAL DISASTER,” and accusing Harvard of being “anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America.”

“Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank,” Trump wrote. “Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer.”