In a brief filed in federal appeals court last week, University lawyers characterized the Trump administration’s efforts to freeze Harvard’s federal funding as “an unprecedented, all-of-government campaign to punish Harvard for its perceived viewpoints and protected First Amendment activity”—using the pretext of antisemitism to justify the attack.
The case that’s now winding its way through the appeals process, officially President & Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, involves more than $2.2 billion in government contracts and grants. The Trump administration initially sought to freeze those funds in April 2025, claiming that Harvard was ineligible for the grants because of alleged civil rights violations against Jewish and Israeli students under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs ruled against the government last fall, prompting a restoration of most funding and the Trump administration’s appeal.
Harvard’s brief, filed on July 15 and supported by several “friend of the court” amicus briefs, acknowledges the presence on Harvard’s campus of “disturbing, offensive, and vile treatment of Jewish students” following the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel—and notes that Harvard responded by creating a task force to confront the problem of antisemitism and anti-Israel (as well as anti-Arab) sentiment on campus.
“But where Harvard saw a need to repair campus relations and reestablish a safe, fair, and welcoming environment for students, staff, and faculty of all religions and viewpoints,” the brief continues, “the government saw an opportunity to bend one of our ‘nation’s most prestigious universities’ to its will.”
After documenting public statements by U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon that linked the funding freeze to the University’s perceived liberalism, the brief argues that the government’s actions “form part of a broader campaign of governmental retaliation against Harvard unless and until it kowtows to the government in matters of viewpoint and academic freedom. That is as egregious a First Amendment violation as this Court is likely to see.”
Harvard’s brief also addresses an argument the government used in its own appellate brief, filed in April: that the funding case is actually a contract dispute that belongs in a different jurisdiction, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
Harvard’s brief characterized that maneuver as an attempt to dodge the regulatory framework for suspending funding under Title VI that had been established by Congress: “Unable to claim compliance with Title VI’s procedural requirements, the government instead asserts that compliance was optional because of a regulatory escape hatch that went unmentioned until after this lawsuit was filed.”
The brief also points out that the court of federal claims does not have the authority to order the relief—an injunction that halted the funding freeze—that the district court previously ordered.
Finally, with respect to the University’s First Amendment and Title VI claims, Harvard’s brief points out that Harvard is not seeking monetary compensation for the damage caused by the failure of the federal government to pay. Instead, the University’s claims “seek to define Harvard’s rights under the Constitution and federal statute,” states the brief, “and to prospectively enforce those rights through equitable relief”—a court-ordered remedy.
In another federal action against Harvard this week, the Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an entirely new Title VI investigation into Harvard on July 20, to determine whether Harvard’s financial aid awards to Chinese students discriminate on the basis of national origin.
A DOJ press release directs the public to a chart showing that Harvard has received more funding from abroad than any other U.S. institution of higher education, and more from China than any other country (across an unspecified time period). It goes on to assert that Harvard “appears to be” accepting funds from “China-based sources” and “providing student financial aid to foreign students, presumably Chinese, based on their national origin—to the potential detriment of students of other national origins, including American citizens.”
A University spokesperson responded that “Harvard follows the law for required reporting of donations and, consistent with our legal obligations under Title VI, does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin in allocating financial aid. We are reviewing the Department of Justice’s latest letter to Harvard and will engage with the government regarding these issues.”
The government’s letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, gives Harvard until July 31 to produce “any and all documents regarding contributions from the People’s Republic of China or other foreign sources affiliated with China-based individuals or entities that contain restrictions on the funds’ use by Harvard to support or establish financial aid funds with any preference given to students from particular countries.”
The University has until July 24 to ask for an extension of time to comply with the request.
