Harvard Asks For Summary Judgment in Funding Case, Says White House Pushed Cuts Despite Agency Objections

Updated June 2, 2025, at 6:51 p.m.

Harvard asked a federal judge on Monday to grant summary judgment in its lawsuit seeking to overturn the Trump administration’s freeze on billions of dollars in federal research funding, saying the White House had given the University a ticking clock before it loses the funds for good.

Summary judgment would allow a judge to decide the case without a full trial. Harvard requested a decision before Sept. 3, the deadline it was given by the federal government to liquidate all financial obligations under the first round of canceled grants.

After that deadline, Harvard’s lawyers argued, the federal government is likely to argue that it is unable to restore the frozen funding.

In a 62-page filing, Harvard’s lawyers cited internal emails, agency memos, and sworn declarations to argue that the cuts violated not only the First Amendment, but also federal law. Excerpts from the documents, many made public for the first time, appear to show that the cuts were made swiftly and with close direction from the White House, which reviewed termination letters and gave agencies deadlines to make cuts.

“The necessity of an injunction is demonstrated by the Government’s continued attempt to punish Harvard’s during the pendency of this case by whatever mechanisms it can,” Harvard’s lawyers wrote in the filing. “Both before and after the Complaint was amended, the Government has, based on purported allegations of antisemitism, continued to terminate funding without complying with the law.”

Harvard alleged that agencies were instructed to use boilerplate termination letters and comply with arbitrary deadlines, even as staff warned of national security risks and irreparable harm to scientific research.

In one instance cited in the filing, the Department of Defense told Harvard it was planning to cut a list of grants. But department staff found out a day later when they were asked to issue stop-work orders.

One Department of Defense official pleaded with Pentagon leadership to spare a Harvard-led project aimed at detecting emerging biological threats, warning that its termination posed “grave and immediate harm to national security.” The official called Harvard the “top performing team” on the program and described the research as a “leap-ahead capability” critical to battlefield surveillance.

Still, the grant was canceled on orders from the Secretary of Defense, part of what Harvard’s lawyers argued was a White House-driven effort to cut funding regardless of scientific value or national interest.

Harvard first sued the Trump administration on April 21 after the government froze an initial $2.2 billion freeze in research funding, hours after Harvard publicly rejected a list of far-reaching demands to crack down on protests, dismantle diversity programming, and change its admissions and hiring practices.

Since the first freeze, the Trump administration ramped up its cuts to Harvard, disqualifying the school from future federal grants and cutting another $450 million. Harvard expanded the scope of its lawsuit in response.

When Harvard first filed suit in April, it declined to seek a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction — legal tools that could have paused further grant cancellations while the case played out. Instead, the University has sought a fast-tracked resolution to the lawsuit, aiming to win the case outright.

Monday’s filing doubled down on that approach, arguing that internal emails and directives clearly showed a coordinated, White House-driven push to cut Harvard’s funding.

Harvard also pushed back on the Trump administration’s public justification for the cuts in the fling. While federal officials have repeatedly cited concerns about antisemitism and ideological homogeneity on campus, Harvard’s lawyers wrote that it had already taken steps to address the issue — including implementing disciplinary measures, restricting protests, pledging to launch a University-wide initiative on viewpoint diversity, and releasing the 311-page report from the presidential taskforce on antisemitism.

The University also wrote that it had required its schools to submit an “action plan” by June 2025 in response to the task force’s findings, outlining steps to improve institutional climate and address discrimination.

Harvard’s fight to keep its funding is playing out in parallel with a second ongoing lawsuit the University filed against the Trump administration to retain its ability to enroll international students.

In that separate case, the University is challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to revoke its certification to host international students — a move that threatened the legal status of nearly 7,000 students. That case remains active in federal court after a judge extended a temporary block on the revocation last week.

In the most recent filing, Harvard cited the DHS’ move as further evidence of a coordinated campaign to punish the University for filing its initial lawsuit — which, Harvard argues, is unconstitutional retaliation.

President Donald Trump’s own remarks may have bolstered Harvard’s case. In a conversation with reporters on Wednesday, Trump laid out his analysis of Harvard’s battle with the White House: “Every time they fight, they lose another $250 million.”

“Harvard wants to fight,” he added. “They want to show how smart they are and they’re getting their ass kicked.”

—Staff writer Dhruv T. Patel can be reached at dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @dhruvtkpatel.