On April 11, 2025, the Trump Administration sent its now-infamous demand letter to Harvard University, the country’s oldest institution of higher learning, identifying ten conditions Harvard must satisfy to maintain its stream of government funding.1 Harvard’s lawyers responded by letter on April 14, vowing that Harvard would not comply with demands deemed “in contravention of the First Amendment” and thus unlawful.2 In retaliation, the Administration froze $2.2 billion in grant funding and threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.3 Harvard then sued the Administration in federal court in Massachusetts, asserting that the government’s threats flout the First Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other federal laws and regulations.4
While the Administration justifies its funding cuts as a response to concerns about antisemitism and viewpoint diversity, Harvard’s well-pleaded Complaint reframes the debate as a defense of our First Amendment freedoms and a call to sustain scientific research that benefits all Americans. The First Amendment, our nation’s most prized fundamental right, is at the forefront of Harvard’s Complaint. Harvard argues that the government’s attempt to exert a “pressure campaign to force Harvard to submit to the Government’s control over its academic programs” is antithetical to First Amendment principles.5 The Supreme Court recognized as early as 1943, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, that “[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official . . . can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”6 Moreover, “[t]he classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas’ that the First Amendment is designed to safeguard,” Harvard argues, quoting from Healey v. James.7 Accordingly, the Administration’s move to “interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance”8 and its ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion’” to suppress disfavored speech9 imperil both truth-seeking and our shared First Amendment rights.
In addition to undermining First Amendment principles, the practical stakes of funding cuts to scientific research are just as profound for all Americans, as laid out by Harvard’s Complaint. Since World War II, the federal government and U.S. universities have engaged in a shared mission to tackle some of our nation’s most pressing problems and develop groundbreaking solutions.10 Congress, through its spending power, authorizes funding and grants to those best positioned to maximize the utility of those funds—other federal agencies, universities, and researchers who have specialized skills, knowledge, and capacity to develop medicines, tools, technologies, and discoveries that improve the lives of American families.
This symbiotic relationship has served as the bedrock of America’s world-class innovation for almost a century. The Administration now moves to dismantle this funding infrastructure without Congressional authorization or any showing as to how cutting federal research dollars is a narrowly tailored response to antisemitic conduct or lack of viewpoint diversity on campus. As Harvard asserts, “[t]he Government has not—and cannot—identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, science, technological and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation.”11
The consequences of cutting federal research funding impact everyday Americans in a very real way. “There is so much goodness, love and care that goes into our work—work that is making homes, schools, and communities safer for people across the U.S., perhaps even for you and/or someone you care about—and if it is ended, the effects will be calamitous,” warns Dr. Katie Edwards, a professor of social work at the University of Michigan and the director of the Interpersonal Violence Research Laboratory.12
At Harvard, faculty are pursuing solutions to urgent challenges that affect millions,13 including research on cancer, infectious diseases, microbiomes, toxin reduction, microplastics, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, space-related radiation, traumatic battlefield injuries, limb regeneration, antibiotic resistance, and so on.14 Similarly, at Princeton, federal funding suspensions threaten projects funded by the Energy Department, the Defense Department, NASA, and the National Institutes of Health, impacting research in climate science, quantitative biology, gene sequencing, and other critical fields.15
Michael Gordin, a renowned historian of science and dean of the college at Princeton, warns that in the history of modern science, “we only have one example of an industrialized, leading scientific country that starved its scientists, and that was the former Soviet Union. The results were quite catastrophic. In the first decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia lost 70% of its scientists. A small fraction left the country, but most just got other jobs.”16
Unlike in post-Soviet Russia, universities here rely on donors and corporations to help fund research programs. However, this private funding is not enough to counter cuts in federal funding. Research is expensive and time-consuming, and corporations often prioritize short-term returns on investment over “blue sky” research.17 At Princeton, for example, the university still faces a $25 million annual shortfall to support faculty research.18 Dipping into these universities’ endowments is not a simple fix. Harvard’s endowment consists of more than 14,000 individual funds, many of which are donor-restricted.19 Harvard and other universities make withdrawals from their endowments to meet operating expenses, but withdrawing enormous funds to offset government funding cuts can jeopardize universities’ long-term financial stability.20
The Administration’s campaign to erode First-Amendment principles and kneecap federal funding for our nation’s scientists and researchers for political gain is alarming. Harvard’s Complaint underscores how research is critical to addressing diseases and health issues that reach every family and individual. The Administration’s demands, if met, would undermine academic freedom and harm the health, safety, and security of millions of Americans. We commend Harvard and its peer institutions for standing up for the rule of law and calling to protect research funding that benefits all Americans, regardless of one’s political leanings.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily of her law firm, Dilworth Paxson LLP or The National Law Review.
1 Letter from U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., Gen. Servs. Admin., & U.S. Dep’t of Educ. to Alan Garber, President, Harvard Univ. (Apr. 11, 2025) https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp- content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf.
2 Letter from Harvard Univ. to U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., Gen. Servs. Admin., & U.S. Dep’t of Educ. (April 14, 2025), https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Harvard- Response-2025-04-14.pdf.
3 Ginia Bellafante, Harvard’s Endowment is $53.2 billion. What Should It Be For?, N.Y. Times (April 26, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/26/business/harvard-endowment-trump.html.
4 President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 1:25-cv-11048 (D.Mass. Apr. 21, 2025) (complaint).
5 President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 1:25-cv-11048 (D.Mass. Apr. 21, 2025) (complaint), at ¶ 11.
6 W. Va. State Bd. Of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).
7 President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 1:25-cv-11048 (D.Mass. Apr. 21, 2025) (complaint), at ¶ 98.
8 President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 1:25-cv-11048 (D.Mass. Apr. 21, 2025) (complaint), at ¶ 7 (quoting Moody v. NetChoice, 603 U.S. 707, 741 (2024))
9 President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 1:25-cv-11048 (D.Mass. Apr. 21, 2025) (complaint), at ¶ 7 (quoting Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 189 (2024)).
10 President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 1:25-cv-11048 (D.Mass. Apr. 21, 2025) (complaint), at ¶ 1 (quoting Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 189 (2024) (citation omitted)).
11 President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 1:25-cv-11048 (D.Mass. Apr. 21, 2025) (complaint), at ¶ 10.
12 Katie Edwards, The Trump Administration Just Made Catastrophic Cuts That Will Affect You or Someone You Know, HuffPost (Apr. 27, 2025), https://www.msn.co/en-us/news/us/the-trump-administration-just-made- catastrophic-cuts-that-will-affect-you-or-someone-you-know/ar-AA1DHWWH?ocid=BingNewsSerp.
13 Chelsea Bailey, Harvard’s Fight with the Trump Administration Is Just Getting Started. The Cost Is Already High, CNN (Apr. 23, 2025), https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/23/us/harvard-funding-freeze-trump- impact/index.html.
14 President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., No. 1:25-cv-11048 (D.Mass. Apr. 21, 2025) (complaint), at ¶ 36.
15 Sena Chang, ‘Devastating’ and ‘Shocking’: What Princeton Stands to Lose from Trump’s Science Freeze, The Daily Princetonian (Feb. 6, 2025), https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2025/02/princeton-news-research- funding-freeze-trump-confusion?utm_source=chatgpt.com
16 Liz Fuller-Wright, The Partnership That Drives America’s Leadership in Medical Discovery: How It Works and What’s at Stake, Princeton Univ. Office of Comm. (Feb. 18, 2025), https://www.princeton.edu/news/2025/02/18/partnership-drives-americas-leadership-medical-discovery-how-it- works-and-whats.
17 Liz Fuller-Wright, The Partnership That Drives America’s Leadership in Medical Discovery: How It Works and What’s at Stake, Princeton Univ., Office of Comm., (Feb. 18, 2025), https://www.princeton.edu/news/2025/02/18/partnership-drives-americas-leadership-medical-discovery-how-it- works-and-whats.
18 Rachel Abrams, The University President Willing to Fight Trump, The Daily (N.Y. Times Apr. 9, 2025) (podcast), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/podcasts/the-daily/princeton-university-trump.html.
19 Alan Blinder & Stephanie Saul, Can Harvard Withstand Trump’s Financial Attack?, N.Y. Times (April 22, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/us/harvard-trump-funding-endowment.html.
20 Alan Blinder & Stephanie Saul, Can Harvard Withstand Trump’s Financial Attack?, N.Y. Times (April 22, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/us/harvard-trump-funding-endowment.html.