• Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Investing
  • Stock
Editor's Pick

Harvard, Trump battle for billions in federal funds as judge weighs next steps

by July 21, 2025
written by July 21, 2025

Lawyers for Harvard University and the Trump administration sparred in federal court in Boston on Monday over the administration’s decision to slash roughly $2.6 billion in federal research funding for the university – the latest in a series of high-stakes court clashes that have pitted the Trump administration against the nation’s oldest university. 

Harvard sued the Trump administration in April over the funding freeze, which it described in its lawsuit as an unlawful and unconstitutional effort to assert federal ‘control’ over elite academic institutions, according to a filing submitted to U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs. 

The Trump administration, for its part, has accused Harvard of ‘fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,’ and refusing to comply with demands from a federal antisemitism task force sent to the university earlier this year.

Both sides have asked Burroughs, an Obama appointee, to issue a summary judgment by early September, which could allow them to avoid a lengthy trial before the start of the new school year.

In court on Monday, Harvard lawyer Steven Lehotsky argued that the funding cuts are an illegal attempt by the Trump administration to coerce the university into complying with the administration’s policies and violate the First Amendment and Title VI protections.

Lawyers for Harvard have argued that the Trump administration’s actions amount to an unconstitutional ‘pressure campaign’ to influence and exert control over its academic programs, which Lehotsky echoed on Monday.

He told Burroughs the funding freeze is an attempt by the Trump administration to control the ‘inner workings’ of the university, and one he argued could cause lasting damage.  

He pointed to earlier claims from Harvard that the administration ‘fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.’

‘By accepting federal funds, Harvard agreed to abide by the provisions in Title VI and the relevant agencies’ corresponding regulations,’ lawyers for the university said in filing the lawsuit earlier this year.

But Harvard’s agreement, they said, does not constitute a ‘blank check for agencies to impose the government’s recent, unrelated demands as a condition of continued funding.’

Meanwhile, Michael Velchik, a lawyer for the Justice Department, countered that the administration has ‘every right’ to cancel the funding, which they sought to frame as a mere contract issue and one that should be heard in a different court. 

The Justice Department also reiterated that they see Harvard’s actions as violating the administration’s order combating antisemitism. 

‘Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,’ Velchik said on Monday. ‘The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.’

President Donald Trump signaled dissatisfaction with the hearing on Monday – vowing on social media to appeal any ruling against the administration to a higher court.

He also took aim at Burroughs. ‘How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases?’ he said on Truth Social, ‘When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN,’ 

Trump further took aim at Harvard, accusing the university of being ‘anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,’ despite having ‘$52 billion’ sitting in the bank.

‘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,’ Trump said. 

Burroughs ended Monday’s hearing by saying she would take the case under advisement, and would issue a ruling after she had sufficient time to weigh the matters presented by the administration and the university. 

She did not offer a timeframe for when she planned to rule on the matter.

Still, the judge appeared skeptical during the hearing of some Trump administration claims, including how it could make such wanton cuts to university funding.

At one point, Burroughs noted to Velchik that she had doubts about the government’s so-called ‘ad hoc’ decisions to cut billions in grant money without providing further evidence, documentation or procedure to ‘suss out’ whether the university or its administrators had taken sufficient steps to combat antisemItism or comply with the guidance handed down by the Trump administration.  

‘The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,’ she told Velchik at one point during the hearing. 

‘I don’t think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech.’

Since Trump took office in January, the administration has targeted the university with investigations from six separate federal agencies. 

It has also sought to ban Harvard’s ability to host international students by attempting to revoke its certification status under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) – a program led by the Department of Homeland Security that allows universities to sponsor international students for U.S. visas. 

Burroughs in June issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from immediately revoking its SEVP credentials, siding with Harvard in ruling that the university would likely suffer ‘immediate and irreparable harm’ if the action was enforced.

Harvard, meanwhile, has signaled no plans to stand down in its fight with the Trump administration.

‘Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else,’ Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said in a radio interview earlier this summer discussing the administration’s actions.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

previous post
Congressional Republicans face bruising battle to avoid government shutdown
next post
AOC slams progressive critics for ‘lying’ about her Iron Dome stance in defense bill fight

related articles

DAVID MARCUS: Trump’s ballroom is no vanity project,...

October 23, 2025

Examining the next threat from Communist China: Our...

October 23, 2025

Sparks fly as Cuomo, Mamdani tear into each...

October 23, 2025

Trump meets NATO’s Rutte amid canceled Putin meeting:...

October 22, 2025

Schumer blocks 12th GOP bid to reopen government...

October 22, 2025

FLASHBACK: Ted Cruz predicts ballooning Obamacare subsidies now...

October 22, 2025

DAVID MARCUS: 5 things New York Republicans need...

October 22, 2025

American missionary kidnapped in Niger by suspected Islamist...

October 22, 2025

Jack Smith defends subpoenaing Republican senators’ phone records:...

October 22, 2025

Trump meets NATO’s Rutte as Ukraine peace talks...

October 22, 2025
Enter Your Information Below To Receive Free Trading Ideas, Latest News, And Articles.


Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!

Latest News

  • Oil and natural gas: oil makes an impulse to a new low

    September 2, 2024
  • Warner Bros. Discovery sues NBA to secure media rights awarded to Amazon

    July 29, 2024
  • Biden says his mental acuity is ‘pretty damn good,’ despite polls showing majority of Americans disagreeing

    July 17, 2024
  • Chief Justice Roberts doubles down on defense of courts as SCOTUS gears up to hear key Trump cases

    May 8, 2025
  • Senators enter marathon vote-a-rama as Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ deadline barrels near

    June 30, 2025

Popular Posts

  • 1

    Secret Service admits leaning on ‘state and local partners’ after claim it ignored Trump team’s past requests

    July 21, 2024
  • 2

    Five more House Democrats call on Biden to drop out, third US senator

    July 19, 2024
  • 3

    Forex Profit Calculator: Maximize Your Trading Potential

    July 10, 2024
  • 4

    Elon and Vivek should tackle US funding for this boondoogle organization and score a multimillion dollar win

    December 4, 2024
  • 5

    Biden calls to ‘lower the temperature’ then bashes Trump in NAACP speech

    July 17, 2024

Categories

  • Economy (829)
  • Editor's Pick (6,498)
  • Investing (634)
  • Stock (941)

Latest Posts

  • Tracking government spending: Contractual services and supplies

    January 3, 2025
  • Iran says it has ‘plenty of scientists’ left to restart uranium enrichment, despite US, Israeli strikes

    August 1, 2025
  • Hegseth warns Europeans ‘realities’ of China and border threats prevent US from guaranteeing their security

    February 12, 2025

Recent Posts

  • Citigroup’s Q2 2024 results: Revenue and net income surge despite regulatory challenges

    July 12, 2024
  • CDC official includes ‘pregnant people’ terminology and pronouns in resignation letter

    August 28, 2025
  • Trump Media reports $16 million loss for quarter as revenue falls

    August 12, 2024

Editor’s Pick

  • Conservatives rally around Trump after meeting with Zelenskyy goes off the rails: ‘Absolute dumba–‘

    February 28, 2025
  • Republicans, pro-life advocates split on Trump’s proposal to federally subsidize IVF

    September 3, 2024
  • Vice President JD Vance teases 2028 bid, says it won’t be ‘given’ to him

    September 7, 2025
  • About us
  • Contacts
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Disclaimer: moneyrisetoday.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

Copyright © 2025 moneyrisetoday.com | All Rights Reserved

Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Money Rise Today – Investing and Stock News
  • Investing
  • Stock