Harvard University filed a lawsuit against the United States President, Donald Trump administration on Monday, challenging a $2.2 billion federal funding freeze that University President Alan M. Garber says has “stark real-life consequences” for students, staff, researchers, and the institution’s global standing.
The administration’s demand for all reports related to antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias since October 2023 has intensified tensions, with Harvard asserting that such actions threaten its constitutional rights and independence.
The administration, claiming the move is to combat campus antisemitism, insists on access to all reports, even unpublished drafts—and the names of contributors, for potential interviews.
A letter from the Department of Health and Human Services outlined these demands, while a White House spokesperson said Harvard’s federal funding is “a privilege” the school no longer qualifies for, accusing it of enriching “grossly overpaid bureaucrats” with taxpayer money.
Harvard’s lawsuit contends that the freeze is unrelated to antisemitism and instead a pressure tactic to force ideological conformity.
It argues that freezing funding for unrelated research, including vital medical and scientific projects, “violates Harvard’s constitutional rights.”
Garber, who is Jewish, said the university is committed to eradicating discrimination, adding, “Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms.”
The Trump administration is also demanding the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, banning of masks at protests, merit-based reforms in hiring and admissions, and increased federal oversight of faculty and student ideology, conditions Harvard rejected in an April 11 letter.
Garber emphasized in an April 14 message that the university “will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”
The administration’s response reportedly escalated after Harvard made the April 11 letter public.
Officials were initially planning to treat Harvard more leniently than Columbia University, but reversed course and applied more pressure. Columbia, facing a similar funding cut, has since imposed demonstration restrictions and restructured its Middle East curriculum.
Harvard maintained it’s not seeking monetary damages but instead a legal order to set aside the administration’s actions, which it argues are unconstitutional.
The university believes the government’s measures represent a broad overreach and an unlawful attempt to regulate Harvard’s “intellectual conditions” under the guise of combating antisemitism.
The Anti-Defamation League’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, cautioned that the administration’s actions may be overreaching, stating that combating antisemitism “should be addressed on its own process and merits.”
Similarly, Harvard Hillel called the sweeping federal measures unfocused, saying they risk harming Jewish students rather than protecting them.
More than 100 Jewish students at Harvard signed an open letter opposing the drastic cuts, arguing that while they differ on how to address antisemitism, they reject using the issue as a political tool. The letter stated they feel like “pawns in a broader political agenda.”
On campus, Garber’s April 14 letter has reportedly energized the Harvard community. “Nothing has united Harvard’s deeply fractured campus more,” said one employee.
Prominent alumni like Larry Summers, once critical of Harvard’s response to antisemitism, now defend the university’s resistance, saying, “An enemies list did not work out for President Nixon. It won’t for President Trump.”
Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, also a Harvard alumna, condemned Trump’s effort to strip the school of its nonprofit status. Speaking on CBS, she called it “outrageous” and part of a broader tactic to “silence critics,” linking it to past efforts to intimidate law firms, companies, and universities.
