Harvard University on Monday asked a federal judge to immediately rule the Trump administration’s $2.5 billion research funding freeze unlawful, arguing the decision was politically motivated, legally baseless, and threatens vital national and scientific interests.
In a detailed court filing to the U.S. District Court in Boston, the university sought summary judgment—asking the court to decide without a full trial—on its lawsuit filed in April. Harvard accuses the administration of violating its constitutional right to free speech and breaching federal law.
“The government’s rush to freeze and terminate billions of dollars in current and future federal funding to Harvard for critical research lacks the basic requisites of reasoned decisionmaking,” the university’s lawyers said.
Over 950 projects affected across fields
Since 14 April, Harvard said it has received 957 orders instructing it to halt federal funding across its research departments. These projects include medical, defence and fundamental science initiatives.
Among the terminated grants were:
John Shaw, Harvard’s vice provost for research, warned the freeze would destroy ongoing studies and severely disrupt operations. In a sworn court statement, he wrote:
“Sensitive equipment would sit idle and degrade. Perishable samples would spoil. Live specimens would be euthanised … Many labs rely on continuous processes, so interruptions would render years of work useless.”
He added, “Harvard cannot cover the funding gap itself” despite its endowment, underlining the scale of dependence on these federal funds.
National security concerns ignored
One of the affected grants—worth $12 million—was part of a Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) programme designed to improve U.S. readiness against biological threats.
“Harvard is currently the top performing team on the … programme,” a DARPA official wrote, as cited in Harvard’s court documents.
“Inadequate knowledge of the biological threat landscape poses grave and immediate harm to national security.”
Despite these warnings, the Defence Department terminated the contract in mid-May. Harvard’s filing states that “nothing in the Government’s administrative record indicates that the Secretary of Defence yielded to the contracting official’s plea.”
Retaliation for political resistance, Harvard claims
The university alleges that the funding block was orchestrated from the White House after it refused to comply with a set of undisclosed demands. The filing also includes internal Trump administration documents, which, according to Harvard, show the terminations were directed centrally and executed through multiple federal agencies using identical language.
“In its haste to cancel Harvard’s funding, the White House demanded that agencies terminate funding, leaving them with no time or freedom to explain their decisions, consider important aspects of the problem and alternatives, or account for the pivotal reliance interests tossed aside by Harvard’s blacklisting,” the filing stated.
Harvard further argues that no proper investigation was conducted into claims of antisemitism before the funding was withdrawn. The court papers say:
“The Government rushed to terminate Harvard’s funding not because it concluded after careful assessment that federal financial support for certain programmes … suborned antisemitism, but because the White House demanded across-the-board terminations … solely to inflict maximum punishment.”
President Donald Trump has publicly criticised elite institutions like Harvard, accusing them of being “woke” and fostering antisemitism. His administration launched multiple investigations into the university—ranging from alleged sex and gender discrimination, to foreign ties, and its treatment of Jewish students after pro-Palestinian campus protests.
Harvard claims these actions amount to a coordinated attack on academic independence and free inquiry.
“The government fails to acknowledge, let alone engage with, the dozens of steps Harvard has taken and committed to take to address antisemitism and bias,” the university’s lawyers wrote.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs has set 21 July as the date for oral arguments. Harvard is asking her to rule swiftly, without trial, and reverse the freeze.
If successful, the decision would restore the frozen funds and potentially set a precedent for how far the federal government can go in policing the politics of higher education.
“This is not just about Harvard,” a university spokesperson previously stated. “It’s about protecting the freedom of all academic institutions to pursue knowledge without political interference.”
(With inputs from Reuters)
In a detailed court filing to the U.S. District Court in Boston, the university sought summary judgment—asking the court to decide without a full trial—on its lawsuit filed in April. Harvard accuses the administration of violating its constitutional right to free speech and breaching federal law.
“The government’s rush to freeze and terminate billions of dollars in current and future federal funding to Harvard for critical research lacks the basic requisites of reasoned decisionmaking,” the university’s lawyers said.
Over 950 projects affected across fields
Since 14 April, Harvard said it has received 957 orders instructing it to halt federal funding across its research departments. These projects include medical, defence and fundamental science initiatives.
Among the terminated grants were:
- $88 million for paediatric HIV/AIDS research
- $12 million to help the Defence Department track emerging biological threats
- $10 million to tackle antibiotic-resistant infections
- $8 million for astrophysics research into dark energy
- $7 million for breast cancer prevention in at-risk women
John Shaw, Harvard’s vice provost for research, warned the freeze would destroy ongoing studies and severely disrupt operations. In a sworn court statement, he wrote:
“Sensitive equipment would sit idle and degrade. Perishable samples would spoil. Live specimens would be euthanised … Many labs rely on continuous processes, so interruptions would render years of work useless.”
He added, “Harvard cannot cover the funding gap itself” despite its endowment, underlining the scale of dependence on these federal funds.
National security concerns ignored
One of the affected grants—worth $12 million—was part of a Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) programme designed to improve U.S. readiness against biological threats.
“Harvard is currently the top performing team on the … programme,” a DARPA official wrote, as cited in Harvard’s court documents.
“Inadequate knowledge of the biological threat landscape poses grave and immediate harm to national security.”
Despite these warnings, the Defence Department terminated the contract in mid-May. Harvard’s filing states that “nothing in the Government’s administrative record indicates that the Secretary of Defence yielded to the contracting official’s plea.”
Retaliation for political resistance, Harvard claims
The university alleges that the funding block was orchestrated from the White House after it refused to comply with a set of undisclosed demands. The filing also includes internal Trump administration documents, which, according to Harvard, show the terminations were directed centrally and executed through multiple federal agencies using identical language.
“In its haste to cancel Harvard’s funding, the White House demanded that agencies terminate funding, leaving them with no time or freedom to explain their decisions, consider important aspects of the problem and alternatives, or account for the pivotal reliance interests tossed aside by Harvard’s blacklisting,” the filing stated.
Harvard further argues that no proper investigation was conducted into claims of antisemitism before the funding was withdrawn. The court papers say:
“The Government rushed to terminate Harvard’s funding not because it concluded after careful assessment that federal financial support for certain programmes … suborned antisemitism, but because the White House demanded across-the-board terminations … solely to inflict maximum punishment.”
President Donald Trump has publicly criticised elite institutions like Harvard, accusing them of being “woke” and fostering antisemitism. His administration launched multiple investigations into the university—ranging from alleged sex and gender discrimination, to foreign ties, and its treatment of Jewish students after pro-Palestinian campus protests.
Harvard claims these actions amount to a coordinated attack on academic independence and free inquiry.
“The government fails to acknowledge, let alone engage with, the dozens of steps Harvard has taken and committed to take to address antisemitism and bias,” the university’s lawyers wrote.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs has set 21 July as the date for oral arguments. Harvard is asking her to rule swiftly, without trial, and reverse the freeze.
If successful, the decision would restore the frozen funds and potentially set a precedent for how far the federal government can go in policing the politics of higher education.
“This is not just about Harvard,” a university spokesperson previously stated. “It’s about protecting the freedom of all academic institutions to pursue knowledge without political interference.”
(With inputs from Reuters)
You may also like
Tripura CM seeks funds to begin seaplane service to boost tourism
Friends actress makes major career move as she steps away from acting
Hollyoaks Clare and Tom revenge showdown revealed as star returns months after axe
Arsenal sent clear message amid Florian Wirtz to Liverpool transfer
Sam Thompson 'feels like he's been shot' as he reveals painful injury
