Harvard v. US Department of Health and Human Services, et al.

Summary

In April 2025, Harvard University filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s freeze of approximately 2.3 billion dollars in federal research funding, alleging the cuts were politically motivated and violated the First Amendment and federal administrative procedures. The freeze followed accusations from a federal task force that Harvard had not sufficiently addressed antisemitism and racial discrimination on campus. In addition to the initial freeze, the administration terminated a further 450 million dollars in grants across multiple federal agencies, disrupting key research efforts in medicine, climate science, artificial intelligence, and other disciplines.

In response, Harvard allocated 250 million dollars from its endowment to sustain ongoing research and sought private sector partnerships to bridge the funding gap, though officials acknowledged private sources could not fully replace federal support. Faculty members worried that the cuts were meant to intimidate universities over speech, diversity, and academic governance. The university’s legal filings accused the government of invoking vague, politically loaded allegations of harassment and discrimination as a veneer for punitive action.

In June 2025, the NIH briefly lifted a three month freeze on new research grants to Harvard, only to reinstate it hours later amid ongoing negotiations. More than 170 NIH funded projects were left in uncertainty. Also in June, the HHS Office for Civil Rights issued a Notice of Violation finding that Harvard had acted with deliberate indifference to harassment of Jewish and Israeli students, in violation of Title VI. That finding became a fulcrum for further federal enforcement.

On July 21, 2025, the court presided over a multi hour hearing on Harvard’s motion for summary judgment. Though no immediate ruling was issued, the court raised pointed questions about due process, the scope of executive authority, and the legitimacy of using funding levers to pressure a university’s internal policies. Harvard’s counsel argued the funding cuts represented unlawful retaliation, while the government maintained that enforcing civil rights obligations was within its discretion. Soon after the hearing, President Trump attacked the presiding judge on social media, labeling them a “Trump hating Judge” and a “TOTAL DISASTER.”

On September 3, 2025, the court delivered a ruling that the government had unlawfully terminated about 2.2 billion dollars in federal research funding to Harvard. The decision held that the administration’s actions were politically motivated and violated federal law, handing a major victory to the university. The White House committed to appealing and persisted in opposing Harvard’s eligibility for future grants.

In late September 2025, however, the legal conflict escalated further. The HHS Office for Civil Rights referred Harvard to the department’s suspension and debarment process, a rarely used but potent enforcement tool, which if imposed would block Harvard from receiving federal grants or contracts across all agencies, not only those under HHS. The referral rested on the June finding of Title VI violations and the administration’s determination that Harvard’s response to antisemitism was inadequate. Under the suspension and debarment regime, the process typically begins with a temporary suspension lasting up to one year, during which no new federal funding may be awarded while the government considers whether to impose full debarment, which carries government wide exclusion for a defined period. Harvard was given 20 days to decide whether to request a formal administrative hearing before an HHS administrative law judge.