A federal appeals court in Boston is weighing whether the Trump administration could lawfully cut off more than $2 billion in research funding to Harvard University, bringing a major dispute over government power, academic independence and campus antisemitism back before the courts.
During arguments before the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik defended the administration’s decision to terminate roughly $2.2 billion in grants. He argued that the government was entitled to demand meaningful action from Harvard over allegations that the university had failed to adequately address antisemitic harassment.
Velchik questioned whether the administration was required to accept Harvard’s own assessment that it had done enough to respond to the concerns.
The case could have consequences well beyond Harvard. A ruling in favour of the administration could strengthen the federal government’s ability to use funding as leverage to push universities to adopt particular policies or make institutional changes.
The Trump administration has made elite universities a central focus of its broader campaign against what it describes as left-wing influence in higher education. Its efforts have included civil rights investigations, pressure over accreditation, action involving international students and attempts to impose conditions on federal funding.
Harvard has mounted a forceful legal response. The university has already won several significant rulings against the administration, including a decision preventing the government from blocking the university from enrolling international students. That separate dispute is also being considered by the appeals court.
Harvard argues funding cuts were retaliation
Harvard’s legal team maintains that the funding cancellations were not a legitimate response to campus conditions but retaliation after the university rejected demands from the administration.
The government sent Harvard a list of requirements in April 2025, including measures targeting diversity, equity and inclusion programmes and proposals for outside monitoring of academic departments.
Harvard President Alan Garber rejected those demands, arguing that the government should not determine what private universities teach, whom they admit or hire, or which subjects they are permitted to study.
The administration subsequently announced that federal funding for Harvard would be frozen, citing concerns over the treatment of Jewish students amid campus demonstrations connected to the Israel-Hamas conflict. The freeze eventually became the termination of approximately $2.2 billion in grants.
Harvard then went to court, arguing that the government’s action violated constitutional protections because it was intended to punish the university for its speech and institutional decisions.
A federal judge previously sided with Harvard, finding that the administration had unlawfully cut the university’s funding. The judge concluded that allegations of antisemitism had been used as a pretext for a broader ideological campaign against the university.
The government has challenged that ruling before the appeals court.
Judges question government’s approach
Paul Clement, representing Harvard, told the appellate panel that the university was entitled to protection against unconstitutional government retaliation, regardless of the contractual arrangements surrounding the grants.
One member of the three-judge panel, Judge Sandra Lynch, appeared particularly skeptical of the administration’s process. She pointed to the absence of a formal investigation or specific findings before the funding terminations were announced.
Her comments suggested concern that the administration may have acted first and attempted to justify its decision afterward.
The government, meanwhile, has also argued that the federal district court should never have handled the grant dispute. According to the Justice Department, questions involving the government’s contractual obligations belong before the US Court of Federal Claims.
The funding case is only one front in the larger legal battle between Harvard and the Trump administration.
The Justice Department has pursued other litigation against the university, including a case accusing Harvard of failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students from discrimination. That lawsuit, which sought to recover federal funding, was dismissed by a judge in August.
The appeals court’s decision on the research grants will therefore be closely watched as a test of how far the federal government can go in conditioning public money on changes at privately run universities.
