When faced with what they deemed outrageous, unconstitutional, and exorbitant demands from the federal government, Harvard University chose to fight the Trump administration in court. They are the first university to do so.
On April 21, 2025, the Ivy League school filed a lawsuit against several officials in the Trump administration. Claiming Harvard would suffer substantial and irreparable injuries by accepting the government's dictates, the suit requests the removal of the government's freeze order on multi-year grants and contract values used for vital medical, scientific, and technological research.
Institutions of Higher Education Targeted
During his campaign for the 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump often mentioned fixing higher education and taking back college campuses from Marxist assaults. In the first few months of his second administration, he's shown little hesitation about threatening cuts in federal funding to universities to bring about his vision.
Intended to compel colleges into following his agenda for removing programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), he's also wielded his financial hammer to crack down on speech criticizing the government or views he considers antisemitic. Some schools, like Columbia University, acquiesced to the administration's demands. Harvard chose to resist.
A Leader in Medical and Scientific Research
Founded in 1636, Harvard University predates the birth of America by almost 150 years. As one of the most highly-regarded universities in the world, it attracts some of the best and brightest scientists to teach and conduct research aimed at discovering advances in medicine, technology, science, and other crucial areas. Support provided by government grants has led to Harvard developing treatments for Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, creating the Pap smear test, inventing life-saving materials used by first responders, and much more.
On April 11, 2025, Harvard University received a letter from the Commander of the Federal Acquisition Services of the General Services Administration and the acting general counsels from the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services. An update on conditions sent the previous week, the letter included provisions demanding the banning of mask wearing at protests, giving the government control over auditing professors, installing government-picked administrators, ending DEI programs, making sure students were admitted for their "viewpoint diversity," and retroactive punishments for protesters as far back as 2023. Viewpoint diversity was not defined, meaning it wasn't clear if the Trump administration's demands included dictating what the school taught in classrooms.
Believing that these provisions and others listed in the demand letter would destroy Harvard and the reputation it had built over centuries, school officials issued a press release refusing to accept the White House's terms. The government's initial responses were somewhat disjointed, with some saying the letter shouldn't have been sent at all, others saying it should have been sent later, and blame being thrust on Harvard for not having their attorneys check to see if the letter (sent on official government letterhead) was supposed to have been received.
President Trump's response a few days later was far more punitive, freezing over $2.2 billion in grants and contracts to Harvard and alleging that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would strip the school's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. Facing these additional threats along with the demands of the April 11 letter, Harvard drew a line in the sand and filed suit.
The Lawsuit
In a letter that accompanied the filing of the lawsuit on April 21, Harvard president Alan Garber made sure the university's stance was extremely clear by stating, "Today, we stand for the values that have made American higher education a beacon for the world." The defendants named in the suit are newly appointed heads of federal agencies. They include Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
Refusing to give the administration "unprecedented and improper control over the university," the lawsuit accuses the government of acting unconstitutionally by freezing approved funds. The suit also claims numerous First Amendment violations in the administration's demands, along with abuse of the nation's laws and regulations. It seeks to have its funding restored, the provisions of the letters vacated, and the federal government enjoined from trying to do any of it again.
Related Resources
- What Is the Unitary Executive Theory? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Do You Know About Grants.gov? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Higher Education Law (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
