Harvard University has taken legal action against the Trump administration, filing a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Boston on Monday. The suit challenges what the institution describes as an unconstitutional and “flatly unlawful” freeze on over $2.2 billion in research funding.
The prestigious university is asking the court to reverse the federal freeze, which it says endangers ongoing scientific and medical research. Harvard contends the move violates procedures required by federal law, as it bypasses necessary consultations and hearings before halting funds.
In a campus-wide message, Harvard President Alan Garber stated the lawsuit was triggered by actions from the federal government following Harvard’s rejection of demands for sweeping changes. These included alterations to university governance, admissions, and hiring practices, and an audit to ensure “viewpoint diversity.”
Garber called the demands laid out in an April 11 letter “intrusive” and a form of improper control over a private academic institution. Though some government officials have since claimed the letter was sent in error, Garber maintains the administration’s continued actions contradict those claims.
Shortly after Harvard refused to comply, the administration imposed the funding freeze and threatened further measures. These included potentially revoking the university’s tax-exempt status and disrupting the education of international students.
Garber said the administration is also contemplating the freeze of an additional $1 billion in funding, which could severely impact critical research and job security for federally funded researchers.
Harvard’s legal filing argues the funding freeze breaches the First Amendment by attempting to control academic speech and hiring practices through coercion. It further claims the administration ignored established legal steps when suspecting civil rights violations tied to federal grants.
Rather than following procedures, which begin with voluntary negotiation and lead to hearings and findings, the government abruptly enacted the freeze. Harvard’s legal team described the action as “arbitrary and capricious,” in violation of federal law.
The suit outlines a timeline of escalating government pressure beginning in February, including a planned visit by a task force investigating antisemitism. By March, the administration had initiated a sweeping review of $8.7 billion in research funds granted to Harvard and its affiliates.
On April 3, a list of funding conditions was issued, culminating in the April 11 letter that prompted the University’s refusal and subsequent legal action.
Garber emphasized that the freeze threatens vital research on cancer, infectious diseases, and battlefield injuries. If funds are not restored, Harvard may have to halt projects, lay off researchers, and abandon live cell studies essential to breakthroughs in health science.
“This government overreach undermines innovation and jeopardizes America’s global leadership,” Garber warned. “It’s a direct threat to scientific progress.”
He acknowledged ongoing efforts to address antisemitism on campus, noting that two task forces are preparing comprehensive reports with action plans. As a Jewish-American, Garber stressed the importance of tackling hate seriously but legally and ethically.
“Fighting antisemitism requires intention, not intimidation,” he said. “Harvard remains committed to justice, research, and its legal and moral responsibilities.”
