Harvard University is in federal court Monday to make the case that President Donald Trump’s administration illegally cut $2.6 billion from the storied college. It’s a pivotal moment in the school’s battle against the federal government.
If U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs decides in the university’s favor, the ruling would reverse a series of funding freezes that later became outright cuts as the administration escalated its fight with the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard’s sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects.
Harvard’s lawsuit accuses the administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal antisemitism task force.
Here’s the latest:
Harvard has moved to self-fund some of its research
However, even with the nation’s largest endowment at $53 billion, the university has warned it can’t absorb the full cost of the federal cuts.
Federal agencies say grants can be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies
In court filings, Harvard has said the government “fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.”
The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons.
Hearing begins in Harvard’s lawsuit over funding cuts
A lawyer for Harvard opened the hearing by saying the Trump administration violated the university’s First Amendment rights by cutting more than $2.6 billion in federal funding.
Steven Lehotsky said the government conditioned research grants on Harvard, “ceding control” to the government over what is appropriate for students and faculty to say.
US envoy doubles down on support for Syria’s government and criticizes Israel’s intervention
A U.S. envoy doubled down on Washington’s support for Syria’s new government, saying Monday there is “no Plan B” to working with it to unite the country still reeling from years of civil war and wracked by new sectarian violence.
In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, Tom Barrack also criticized Israel’s recent intervention in Syria, calling it poorly timed and saying it complicated efforts to stabilize the region.
Barrack is ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria, with a short-term mandate in Lebanon. He spoke in Beirut following more than a week of clashes in Syria’s southern province of Sweida between militias of the Druze religious minority and Sunni Muslim Bedouin tribes.
Tom Barrack, who is ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria and also has a short-term mandate in Lebanon, told The Associated Press that Israel’s intervention in the latest round of conflict in Syria had further complicated matters. (AP Video shot by Fadi Tawil; Production by Abby Sewell)
Syrian government forces intervened, ostensibly to restore order, but ended up siding with the Bedouins before withdrawing under a ceasefire agreement with Druze factions. Hundreds have been killed in the fighting, and some government fighters allegedly shot dead Druze civilians and burned and looted homes.
Neighboring Israel intervened last week on behalf of the Druze, who are seen as a loyal minority within Israel and often serve in its military. Israel launched dozens of strikes on convoys of government forces in Sweida and struck the Ministry of Defense headquarters in central Damascus.
Over the weekend, Barrack announced a ceasefire between Syria and Israel. Syrian government forces have redeployed in Sweida to halt renewed clashes between the Druze and Bedouins, and civilians from both sides were set to be evacuated Monday.
Read more about the U.S. support for Syria’s new government
Trump threatens to hold up stadium deal if Washington Commanders don’t switch back to Redskins
Trump is threatening to hold up a new stadium deal for Washington’s NFL team if it does not restore its old name of the Redskins, which was considered offensive to Native Americans.
Trump also said Sunday that he wants Cleveland’s baseball team to revert to its former name, the Indians, saying there was a “big clamoring for this” as well.
The Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians have had their current names since the 2022 seasons, and both have said they have no plans to change them back. Trump said the Washington football team would be “much more valuable” if it restored its old name. His latest interest in changing the name reflects his broader effort to roll back changes that followed a national debate on cultural sensitivity and racial justice.
The Commanders and the District of Columbia government announced a deal earlier this year to build a new home for the football team at the site of the old RFK Stadium, the place the franchise called home for more than three decades.
Read more about Trump’s attempt to strongarm the NFL team
Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Great Job Associated Press & the Team @ KSAT San Antonio Source link for sharing this story.
