Updated July 21, 2025, at 6:43 p.m.
BOSTON — A federal judge on Monday appeared skeptical of the federal government’s justification for freezing nearly $3 billion in research funding to Harvard, as lawyers for the two parties asked for a speedy decision in a high-stakes case that could determine the future of Harvard’s research enterprise.
Speaking in front of a packed Boston courtroom, United States District Judge Allison D. Burroughs pressed a lawyer for the Department of Justice to explain how steep funding cuts to Harvard’s research centers were connected to the White House’s stated goal of combatting antisemitism within the University.
“They’re not funding speech, they’re funding research. And you’re tying that research to speech,” Burroughs said to Michael K. Velchik ’12, who represented the government alone.
The nearly three-hour hearing saw University lawyers blast the Trump administration’s funding freeze as flagrantly unconstitutional and a violation of Harvard’s right to free speech. The administration’s campaign against Harvard “is a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment,” Steven P. Lehotsky, a lawyer for the University, said during oral arguments.
But Velchik argued that the funding cuts were a legitimate response to antisemitic incidents at Harvard. He pointed to the University’s widely panned response to pro-Palestine protests, including an encampment in Harvard Yard and the vandalism of the John Harvard statue last year, in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza.
“Since then, students and organizations have sued Harvard for its failure to address antisemitism, donors have stopped giving to Harvard, citing the antisemitism,” Velchik said. “Law enforcement has brought criminal charges for assault and battery against Jewish students.”
Minutes later, Burroughs interjected. How is combatting antisemitism, she asked Velchik, connected to pulling research funding?
The federal government, Burroughs added, was justifying “protesting Jews and upholding American values while, on the other hand, taking steps that are very antithetical to those interests.”
Velchik also defended the government’s actions by arguing that federal agencies were simply exercising their right, as outlined in grant contracts, to redirect funds away from projects whose goals no longer align with government priorities.
But Burroughs said Velchik’s argument suggested that the federal government could cancel grants even if their termination violated the Constitution. The consequences for constitutional law of accepting such an argument, she added, would be “staggering.”
Hours after the hearing, Trump took to social media to blast Burroughs as “a TOTAL DISASTER” and suggested that she is biased against him. Trump vowed to appeal her decision if she sides with Harvard.
“She has systematically taken over the various Harvard cases, and is an automatic ‘loss’ for the People of our Country!” Trump wrote in his post. “When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN.”
The hearing on Monday is just the latest step in a monthslong, high-profile confrontation between the nation’s oldest university and the Trump administration.
The federal government announced in late March a “comprehensive review” of billions of research dollars by the federal government as part of an investigation into antisemitism at Harvard by a multiagency task force.
That effort escalated just weeks later, when government officials accidentally sent University leadership an April 11 letter outlining demands that Harvard would have to comply with should it maintain access to federal funds.
Those terms included external audits of multiple graduate schools and academic departments for both antisemitism and “viewpoint diversity,” as well as changes to hiring and admissions practices, an end to diversity programs, and regular reports to the federal government certifying compliance with the Trump administration’s demands.
In a message to affiliates just days later, Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 publicly rejected the government’s demands, blasting them as “assertions of power, unmoored by the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate.” Hours later, the Trump administration announced that billions of Harvard’s federal dollars would be frozen.
Within weeks, Harvard sued the Trump administration over the freeze, arguing that the White House retaliated against the University for exercising its freedom of speech. Harvard has also argued that the administration failed to follow the proper procedures for canceling federal grants and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which regulates the actions of federal agencies.
Harvard’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, a faculty group, also sued the Trump administration over the initial multi-billion dollar grant review, before joining their case to the University’s after it also challenged the freeze in court.
On Monday, Burroughs noted that the AAUP requested the same relief as Harvard and floated staying the suit to allow her to rule more quickly on the administration’s funding cuts. But lawyers for the AAUP asked Burroughs to not stay the case, saying that the organization wants to continue its legal challenge in case Harvard settles with the White House before its case is fully heard.
Tensions between the Trump administration and Harvard remained high in the months after the first targeted funding cuts. The White House continued to freeze more funding, barred Harvard from receiving any new federal grants, and — in a move that drew another lawsuit by the University — attempted to bar international students from enrolling at Harvard, first by revoking its access to a federal visa database and then by banning Harvard’s foreign students from entering the country.
The funding freeze has hit the University hard. With billions of dollars in grants and contracts suddenly halted, researchers across Harvard’s schools have been forced to shelve projects, including many studying treatments for cancer and other diseases. A Harvard-wide effort to cut costs, meanwhile, has resulted in layoffs, hiring freezes, and a halt to wage increases.
Just days before Commencement in May, Harvard sued the administration a second time over the White House’s threats to international students. Burroughs, who also oversaw that case, granted the University a series of early victories by temporarily blocking the federal government from impeding Harvard’s ability to bring in students from abroad.
Burroughs did not rule in the funding case on Monday, but said she would issue an opinion quickly. Harvard has asked for a decision by Sept. 3, the deadline set by the federal government for Harvard to submit “paperwork that would finally close out grant funding,” lawyers for the University wrote in a court filing.
Experts have said that Harvard has a strong case against the Trump administration that is likely to fare well in court.
But Harvard and the Trump administration may come to an agreement on their own. The two parties resumed negotiations last month, though Harvard has said little publicly about the talks.
In the meantime, the Trump administration has continued to ramp up threats to Harvard: the federal government has renewed threats to Harvard’s accreditation, subpoenaed records relating to foreign students, and accused the University of violating civil rights law by failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students from antisemitism.
—Staff writer Matan H. Josephy can be reached matan.josephy@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @matanjosephy.
—Staff writer William C. Mao can be reached at william.mao@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @williamcmao.
