A battle between one of the world's most celebrated universities and the US government has been playing out in the public sphere.
Now, Harvard University's fight to keep billions of dollars in government funding has made its way to court.
So, why was Harvard's funding cut in the first place, and how did the tussle get to this?
Why did the Trump administration cut Harvard's funding?
In March, the US Education Department formed a task force to look into antisemitism at public universities, as pro-Palestine protests about the war in Gaza popped up on campuses across the nation.
The task force sent warnings to numerous universities, including Harvard, that they needed to do more to protect Jewish and Israeli students or they would face government punishment.
Harvard rejected that warning and numerous follow-up demands from the department.
"The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights," Harvard president Alan Garber said in April.
The Trump administration responded by freezing $US2.6 billion ($3.98 billion) of federal grant funding to Harvard, a major hit to the university's medical and science research programs.
The university sued the Trump administration over the freeze, calling it illegal.
It claimed the government had overstepped in violation of America's right to free speech and that the research funding grants could not be reasonably connected to antisemitism.
What is Title VI?
Title VI is the section under the Civil Rights Act (1964) that "prohibits discrimination based on race, colour, or national origin in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance."
The Act applies to various sectors that receive federal funding, such as hospitals, social services, and education.
The Trump administration said Harvard and other universities have violated this act by failing to protect Jewish students from harassment.
What was the government funding for?
Harvard Magazine reports the university received $US686 million in federal research funding in 2024, about 11 per cent of its annual budget.
Since the funding freeze, thousands of grants and contracts across multiple years have been cancelled.
The grants supported a variety of different studies, including DNA research, sudden infant death, and dementia.
Harvard has warned that the funding freeze could lead to the loss of research, the closing of labs, and damage to careers.
Three Harvard researchers who lost their federal funding spoke about disruptions to the long-term impact of funding on cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and other health conditions.
They said the cuts could force researchers to go overseas to work.
"Unfortunately, the termination of this research work would mean the end of this progress and the implications are serious for the well-being of Americans and our children into the future," said Walter Willett, a Harvard professor of epidemiology and nutrition who lost grants that funded long-term studies of men's and women's health.
"This is just one example of the arbitrary and capricious weaponisation of taxpayer money that is undermining the health of Americans."
What other universities have had funding cuts?
While Harvard was a big target for the Trump administration, the US Education Department has warned 60 universities that it could bring similar enforcement actions against them over antisemitism allegations.
Some major universities already facing cuts include:
- Brown University, threatened with $US510 million in funding cuts
- Princeton University says they have had several dozen research grants frozen.
- Columbia University has had $US400 million in federal grants cut. However, the university has agreed to significant changes and is negotiating to regain funding.
According to the latest data from the National Center for Education Statistics, federal grant funding accounted for $US41 billion out of $500 billion in university revenue in 2023.
What do we know about the court?
Judge Allison Burroughs is overseeing this case.
On the first day of the hearing, she questioned how the government could make "ad-hoc" decisions to cancel grants and do so without offering evidence that any of the research was antisemitic.
At one point, she called the government's assertions "mind-boggling."
She also argued the government had provided "no documentation, no procedure" to "suss out" whether Harvard administrators "have taken enough steps or haven't" to combat antisemitism.
"The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering," she said.
"I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?"
Judge Burroughs is also overseeing another case involving Harvard and the Trump administration, where she has temporarily blocked Homeland's decision to revoke Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program.
In 2018, she presided over Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v Harvard University, which argued the school's admissions program was discriminatory against Asian Americans, ultimately finding in favour of Harvard.
Who are the lawyers?
Steven Lehostky represented Harvard on day one of the hearing.
He argued the case was about the government trying to control the "inner workings" of Harvard.
"It's not about Harvard's conduct," he said. "It's about the government's conduct toward Harvard."
Michael Velchik, himself a Harvard alumnus, represented the Trump administration on Monday.
He said the Trump administration has the authority to cancel the grants after concluding the funding did not align with its priorities, namely Trump's executive order combating antisemitism.
He argued Harvard allowed antisemitism to flourish at the university following the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, including protesters camped out on campus chanting antisemitic slogans as well as attacks on Jewish students.
"Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that," Mr Velchik said.
"The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard."
What has Trump said?
Donald Trump pre-emptively posted on Truth Social, criticising Judge Burroughs and announcing plans to appeal.
"The Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed Judge," he wrote.
"She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling. She has systematically taken over the various Harvard cases, and is an automatic "loss" for the People of our Country!
"Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America."
He questioned how "this Trump-hating Judge" was assigned to the case.
"When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN. Also, the Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard, much of which had been given without explanation."
Could Australian universities have their federal funding cut?
It is possible.
Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, has recommended government withhold funding from universities that fail to reduce hatred against Jewish students.
She plans to assess universities with a "report card" on their implementation of practices to combat antisemitism.
Australian universities that fail to act and are found to engage in discriminatory or hateful speech risk having government funding withheld and grants terminated.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese welcomed the July 10 report, which is currently under review.
ABC/Wires
