New Delhi: Harvard University Monday filed a sweeping federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, escalating a high-stakes debate over academic freedom, federal oversight, and the future of American higher education.
The 51-page complaint, filed in the federal court of Massachusetts, accused the administration of unlawfully attempting to exert political control over the university by freezing $2.2 billion in federal research grants, and threatening to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status.
“This is an unprecedented and improper attempt to control what we teach, whom we hire, and how we govern ourselves,” Harvard President Alan M. Garber said in a statement titled ‘Upholding Our Values, Defending Our University’.
“The consequences will be severe and long-lasting,” he added.
At the centre of the clash is the administration’s claim that Harvard has failed to adequately respond to anti-semitic incidents on campus. This is part of a wider crackdown on elite universities perceived by the White House as hostile to its agenda. However, Harvard argues the government’s actions are politically motivated, punitive and devoid of legal basis.
“The government has not—and cannot—identify any rational connection between anti-semitism concerns, and the scientific and medical research it has frozen,” Harvard’s lawsuit argued, pointing to halted research in areas, such as ALS, cancer and battlefield medicine. Many of these programmes, according to the university, were immediately suspended after the funding freeze took effect.
Also Read: Why Trump is at war with Columbia University
From oversight to showdown
The confrontation began on 31 March this year, when the Trump administration launched a formal review of federal grants and contracts with Harvard worth approximately $9 billion. Eleven days later, the university received a letter outlining a list of conditions to maintain its “financial relationship” with the government.
The demands, the university has claimed, were sweeping and unconstitutional.
According to Harvard, the conditions included eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes, instituting leadership reforms, banning masks at protests, disciplining students involved in a pro-Palestinian encampment in Harvard Yard, and conducting audits to enforce “viewpoint diversity” among faculty and students.
The administration also proposed reporting international students suspected of indulging in misconduct directly to federal authorities. Harvard refused to comply.
Days later, the administration froze $2.2 billion in multi-year grants, and suspended an additional $60 million in federal contracts.
In its complaint, Harvard named several senior officials in the Trump administration, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Education Secretary Linda M. McMahon, and Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi. The university has argued that these officials are using their control over research grants “as leverage to gain control of academic decision-making”.
Trump vs academia
Harvard is not alone. Over the past year, the Trump administration has revoked more than $400 million in funding from Columbia University, suspended research grants at Princeton, Cornell and Northwestern, and rolled back DEI programmes nationwide. Federal officials claim these moves are part of a broader effort to combat rising anti-semitism on campuses and ensure compliance with civil rights laws.
The lawsuit, however, contended that the administration’s actions are a retaliatory “pressure campaign” designed to punish universities that resist federal control.
“The government has cited the university’s response to anti-semitism as a justification for its unlawful action. As a Jew and as an American, I know very well that there are valid concerns about rising anti-semitism. To address it effectively requires understanding, intention and vigilance,” Garber said.
White House spokesperson Harrison Fields, however, defended the funding freeze in a statement Monday night: “The gravy train of federal assistance to institutions like Harvard, who enrich their bloated bureaucracies with tax dollars from struggling American families, is coming to an end. Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to access that privilege.”
In a separate statement, the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism added, “Harvard’s reaction reinforces the entitlement mindset endemic to elite universities. The harassment of Jewish students is intolerable. If Harvard wants taxpayer support, it must demonstrate meaningful change.”
Though Harvard has the world’s largest endowment—valued at $53 billion—university officials have stressed that federal funding remains essential. In the 2024 fiscal year, Harvard received $686 million in federal research funding, with the majority—$488 million—coming from the National Institutes of Health. The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, which relies on federal support for nearly half its budget, has already been forced to halt several critical initiatives, the New York Times reported.
“These partnerships have led to life-saving breakthroughs in medical, engineering and scientific fields,” Garber said in his statement. “To retreat from them now risks not only public health, but also America’s economic vitality and global leadership in innovation.”
The university also argued that the government’s actions violate both its free speech and due process rights, and that the administration sidestepped legal procedures typically used in civil rights investigations.
Political support and legal strategy
The case has already garnered political support. Former President Barack Obama, in a social media post last week, had praised Harvard’s stance. “Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions—rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom,” Obama wrote.
Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions – rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and… https://t.co/gAu9UUqgjF
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) April 15, 2025
Meanwhile, Harvard has brought in heavyweight counsel with ties to the Trump administration. William A. Burck, a former adviser to the Trump Organisation, and Robert K. Hur, a Department of Justice alumnus and former special counsel, are set to argue the case.
Harvard also plans to release reports from its internal task forces on combating anti-semitism and anti-Muslim bias in the coming weeks, signalling that it is moving forward with its own efforts to address hate and intolerance on campus, without federal interference.
“We will not surrender our independence,” Garber’s statement read. “We will meet this challenge with integrity and resolve.”
(Edited by Kartikay Chaturvedi, an intern who graduated from ThePrint School of Journalism)
Also Read: ‘Ukraine war terrible, but not ours’—Marco Rubio hints US may abandon peace efforts if no progress