Harvard modifies lawsuit to counteract recent funding cuts

Harvard revised its lawsuit against the Trump administration on Tuesday to incorporate the latest round of reductions to research funding. According to the complaint, the government’s actions breach federal law and the University’s First Amendment rights and are unrelated to allegations of antisemitism on campus.

The initial complaint was submitted on April 21 and requested the court to nullify and reject the cancellation of $2.2 billion in grants. Last week, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon notified the University that it should cease pursuing federal grants “as none would be granted.” On Tuesday, the federal Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism announced that Harvard researchers would forfeit an additional $450 million in funding from multiple agencies.

Since the original lawsuit was launched, Harvard has received grant termination notices from the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Defense Department, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The notices are similar, stating that awards have been terminated because the projects “no longer reflect agency priorities,” and there is, in effect, no way to modify the projects to meet approval.

At stake, the revised complaint asserts, is the University’s capacity to sustain research that has led to advancements in health, science, national security, and other sectors.

“In total, the ultimatum presented to Harvard and other institutions is evident. Permit the government to micromanage your academic establishment or threaten the institution’s ability to pursue medical innovations, scientific findings, and groundbreaking solutions,” the complaint states.

Harvard President Alan Garber, in a correspondence sent to McMahon on Monday, endeavored to find common ground with certain priorities of the Trump administration, underscoring University initiatives to combat antisemitism and its efforts to promote constructive discourse on campus, among other efforts.

“As your letter indicates, we share common concerns on several key subjects, including the necessity of eradicating antisemitism and other forms of bigotry on campus,” Garber articulated. “Like you, I hold that Harvard must nurture an academic atmosphere that promotes freedom of thought and expression, advocating for a variety of perspectives rather than concentrating on narrow orthodoxies.”

However, he deemed the Trump administration’s demands for changes in governance and hiring, along with “audits” of student and faculty opinions and other measures, as unlawful, resisting “the federal government’s encroachment into the constitutional liberties of private universities and its ongoing neglect of Harvard’s adherence to the law.” He claimed that the administration has “overlooked the numerous meaningful actions we have undertaken and will continue to pursue to uphold our principles and enhance the lives of individuals across the nation and globally.”

The lawsuit contends that the government’s actions aim to enforce ideological equilibrium and consequently violate the University’s free speech rights. The funding freezes and terminations declared thus far also disregard the procedures delineated in federal law for addressing complaints regarding civil rights violations, asserts the University.

Garber has consistently highlighted several University reforms designed to address antisemitism. Last month, he accepted the findings of two task forces examining antisemitism and anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian prejudice, referring to them before their release as “hard-hitting and distressing.”

In his correspondence to McMahon, Garber indicated that recent measures taken by Harvard comprise new investments in the exploration of Judaism and related fields and fresh initiatives aimed at making Harvard more pluralistic and inclusive from an intellectual diversity perspective. He also challenged claims asserting that Harvard is a partisan entity.

“It is neither Republican nor Democratic,” Garber remarked. “It is not an extension of any other political party or movement. Nor will it ever be.”