In the Fight Over Federal Higher Education Policy, Massachusetts Is a Major Player

In its clash with the Trump administration, Harvard has a powerful ally: the state of Massachusetts.

Since President Donald Trump took office in January, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea J. Campbell has joined 35 lawsuits and submitted amicus briefs in dozens of cases against his administration.

The cases have spanned challenges to everything from Trump’s National Guard deployments to the Department of Government Efficiency’s access to sensitive federal data. But many of Campbell’s highest-profile interventions have centered on higher education and research policy, and for good reason: the Massachusetts economy reaps an estimated 320,000 jobs and $70 billion in annual economic gain from universities.

Hospitals and biotechnology firms also act as major economic drivers, and Massachusetts receives more federal research funding per capita than any other state. Universities in the state collectively receive more than $2 billion from the federal government.

Campbell has helped lead the legal opposition to changes that could imperil that funding, including cuts to diversity-related grants and limits on reimbursement rates for indirect research costs. She has also submitted amicus briefs supporting Harvard in both of its lawsuits against the Trump administration’s heavy-handed use of federal power to extract concessions from the University.

“I don’t think you had to really convince Andrea Campbell to file a brief on behalf of Harvard,” Harvard Law School professor Mason Kortz said. “I’m sure she was anxious to do so.”

The Trump administration’s disruptions to federal research funding began almost immediately after the president took office — and Campbell made Massachusetts an early and consistent opponent.

When the National Institutes of Health implemented a 15-percent cap on indirect cost rates — funding for research costs not tied to specific labs or projects — a group of 22 states, including Massachusetts, sued three days later to halt the cap. The indirect funding cap was permanently blocked in April after a federal judge deemed it “arbitrary and capricious.”

The National Science Foundation also capped its indirect cost rate this spring and revoked funding for projects focused on increasing the participation of marginalized groups in STEM fields. Massachusetts joined 15 other states in a lawsuit against the NSF changes. A judge declined to force the NSF to restart payments in an August ruling, and the case is ongoing.

When the Trump administration began cutting NIH funding for projects related to topics including race, gender and sexuality, Covid-19 and vaccines, and health disparities in March, Campbell helped lead a lawsuit against it.

A federal judge ruled in June that the funding cuts were illegal and ordered their reinstatement, but the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in August that the NIH could proceed with terminating nearly $800 million in research grants.

Harvard — itself a Trump administration target — is also one of the state’s top employers, and Massachusetts has a large stake in its federal fight.

“This just isn’t about Harvard,” Harvard Law School lecturer and former Maine attorney general James E. Tierney said. “It’s about jobs. It’s about economic development. Companies have moved to Massachusetts for years because Harvard is there. They want to be close to Harvard.”

Kortz, the HLS professor, said that Campbell’s stance may also be a good electoral bet — capitalizing on the praise that the University and Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 have received for their fight against the Trump administration, and playing to a popular stance within Massachusetts’ voter base.

“It’s no secret that Harvard and President Garber got a lot of accolades for standing up to the Trump administration,” Kortz said.

“Let’s not forget, attorney general is an elected position,” Kortz added. “Attorney General Campbell probably wants to do the things that are popular with most of the constituents in Massachusetts. And I think in Massachusetts, Harvard’s pushback on the federal administration is very popular.”

When the University sued the Trump administration over its April revocation of more than $2 billion in federal research funding, Campbell led 20 states in an amicus brief supporting Harvard.

“The federal government’s punitive and unlawful freeze of federal funding to Harvard poses an unprecedented threat to the university,” the amicus brief read. “This wholesale attack will have devastating spillover effects on Massachusetts’s economy.”

A federal judge ruled in September that the funding freeze violated the Constitution, striking down the revocations. Harvard has now received payments on the majority of funding that was previously frozen.

And when the White House turned its attention to Harvard’s international students — with its attempt to revoke its Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification in May — Campbell filed an amicus brief less than a week later pledging the state’s support.

Massachusetts’ international students are a major economic asset, contributing roughly $3.9 billion in the 2023-24 academic year, according to NAFSA, a professional organization representing educators of international students. Harvard’s international students alone contributed more than $380 million and almost 4,000 jobs.

The SEVP revocation was quickly blocked after the University filed the lawsuit, and a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction extending the block in June. No final decision has been reached in the case.

Campbell also threw her support behind Harvard researcher Kseniia Petrova, calling her for release from immigration detention in Louisiana. Petrova, a Russian citizen, was arrested by Customs and Border Patrol officials in February for allegedly attempting to bring undeclared frog embryos into the country.

She was released from immigration detention at the end of May, but was indicted in late June on charges of criminal smuggling and making false statements and is now awaiting a criminal trial.

Campbell also joined a group of 19 states in an April amicus brief in support of the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard chapter, which sued the Trump administration over the government’s use of immigration policy to crack down on pro-Palestine activists.

A federal judge ruled earlier this month that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment rights of international students and professors by punishing them for pro-Palestine speech.

—Staff writer Megan L. Blonigen can be reached at megan.blonigen@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X at @MeganBlonigen.