Harvard sues Trump over federal funding freeze and political interference

Harvard challenges Trump’s funding freeze, accusing administration of violating academic freedom and constitutional rights.

A demonstrator holds a sign in Harvard Square following a rally opposing President Donald Trump’s criticism of Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on April 17, 2025. Photo by Joseph Prezioso/AFP

By Anna Fadiah and Hayu Andini

Harvard University filed a federal lawsuit on Monday, accusing former U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration of using a sweeping freeze on $2.2 billion in federal funding to coerce the institution into political submission. The case, filed in a Massachusetts federal court, marks a dramatic escalation in the ongoing battle between the Ivy League university and the Trump-led Republican movement, which has repeatedly accused elite campuses of harboring anti-Semitic sentiments and enforcing liberal orthodoxy.

By launching this lawsuit, Harvard seeks to stop what it describes as an unprecedented attempt by the federal government to control the internal operations of one of the world’s most prestigious academic institutions. The university claims the administration’s actions violate the First Amendment and other federal laws, portraying the funding freeze as “arbitrary and capricious.”

According to the 62-page complaint, Harvard alleges that Trump’s administration is using federal funding as leverage to infringe upon academic freedom, threatening not only Harvard’s budget but also the autonomy of its admissions, hiring policies, and research directions.

“This case involves the Government’s efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision making at Harvard,” the university’s legal filing stated. “The Government’s actions flout not just the First Amendment, but also federal laws and regulations.”

The lawsuit explicitly asks the court to declare the funding freeze unlawful, invalidate the conditions placed on federal grants, and require the federal government to cover Harvard’s legal expenses. Harvard sues Trump not only to regain access to the frozen funds but to establish a legal precedent protecting institutional independence in the face of political intimidation.

The conflict stems from Trump’s broader campaign targeting elite universities, which he claims have turned into bastions of anti-Semitism and leftist ideology. He has repeatedly cited anti-Israel protests that took place across college campuses during the Gaza war as proof that institutions like Harvard foster hostility against Jewish communities.

On his Truth Social platform, Trump launched a scathing attack on the university: “Harvard can no longer be considered even a decent place of learning, and should not be considered on any list of the World’s Great Universities or Colleges. Harvard is a JOKE, teaches Hate and Stupidity, and should no longer receive Federal Funds.”

Harvard’s lawsuit challenges those accusations directly, stating, “Make no mistake: Harvard rejects anti-Semitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate anti-Semitism on campus.”

According to Harvard President Alan Garber, Trump’s administration has opened multiple investigations into the university’s operations in recent months. These include demands for oversight of Harvard’s diversity programs and academic decisions, as well as attempts to monitor the activities of international students.

The Department of Homeland Security has even threatened Harvard’s ability to admit foreign students unless it provides detailed records on visa-holders allegedly involved in “illegal and violent activities.”

International students currently make up more than a quarter of Harvard’s student body, with the university reporting 27.2 percent international enrollment for the 2024–25 academic year.

Despite the pressure, Garber has firmly rejected any compromise: “We will not negotiate over our independence or our constitutional rights.”

While Harvard sues Trump in defiance, other major institutions have responded differently. Columbia University, among others, has reportedly made concessions to less sweeping government demands. These universities face similar threats to their federal funding and reputations, as the administration expands its scrutiny of diversity initiatives and political culture on campuses.

Trump’s critics see the campaign as part of a broader effort to stifle dissent, weaponize claims of anti-Semitism, and punish universities perceived as hostile to conservative values. Supporters argue that the government has a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer-funded institutions uphold free speech and oppose all forms of discrimination.

In Harvard’s view, however, the stakes go far beyond any single controversy. The university contends that Trump’s actions set a dangerous precedent by allowing the federal government to manipulate higher education through financial threats.

The lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of using the issue of anti-Semitism as a political smokescreen to push unrelated agendas. It highlights how the funding freeze affects research in medical, scientific, and technological fields — areas with no direct connection to the protests or anti-discrimination policies in question.

“But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts,” the lawsuit reads, “the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with anti-Semitism.”

Critics of Trump’s educational policies argue that the real motive behind the funding freeze is to intimidate institutions that challenge the conservative narrative. Harvard, as the oldest and wealthiest university in the United States, is seen as a symbolic target.

The administration’s decision to go after Harvard reflects what many analysts describe as an effort to reshape the cultural and political landscape of higher education, bringing elite campuses in line with the government’s ideological priorities.

By taking the fight to federal court, Harvard is positioning itself as a defender of academic freedom and institutional independence — values that resonate across the global academic community. The outcome of this case could determine how far future administrations can go in dictating what universities teach, who they hire, and what kind of students they admit.

Harvard sues Trump not just to restore its funding, but to draw a clear line between legitimate government oversight and unconstitutional interference. At the heart of the case lies a question that will likely echo beyond this moment: can universities remain bastions of free thought and innovation when their very survival depends on political favor?

As the legal proceedings unfold, other universities and academic institutions will be watching closely. If the court rules in Harvard’s favor, it may set a legal precedent limiting future attempts by any administration to use financial pressure as a political weapon. But if the Trump administration prevails, it could open the door to a new era of government control over the American education system.

For now, Harvard remains defiant — not just as an institution under siege, but as a symbol of resistance in an increasingly polarized academic and political landscape.