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.
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.
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.
Advertisement President Donald Trump’s own remarks may have bolstered Harvard’s case.
Updated at 6:51 p.m. on June 2, 2025. m.
In its lawsuit to overturn the Trump administration’s freeze on billions of dollars in federal research funding, Harvard asked a federal judge on Monday to grant summary judgment, claiming the White House had given the University a deadline before permanently losing the funds.
A judge might decide the case without a full trial by using summary judgment. Before September, Harvard asked for a decision. 3. The federal government set a deadline for clearing out all debts related to the first round of canceled grants.
“The federal government is likely to argue that it is unable to restore the frozen funding after that deadline,” Harvard’s attorneys contended.
Harvard’s lawyers contended in a 62-page document that the cuts were illegal under both federal law and the First Amendment, citing agency memos, internal emails, and sworn declarations. The White House, which examined termination letters and provided agencies with deadlines to make cuts, seems to have closely monitored the cuts and executed them quickly, according to excerpts from the documents, many of which were made public for the first time.
“The Government’s persistent efforts to penalize Harvard during the course of this case by any means possible demonstrate the need for an injunction,” the filing’s attorneys for Harvard wrote. According to alleged accusations of antisemitism, the Government has continued to cut off funding without following the law both before and after the Complaint was amended. “.”.
Harvard claimed that despite staff warning of irreversible harm to scientific research and national security risks, agencies were told to follow arbitrary deadlines and use boilerplate termination letters.
The Department of Defense informed Harvard that it intended to reduce a list of grants in one case referenced in the filing. When department employees were asked to issue stop-work orders, however, they learned about it a day later.
In an appeal to Pentagon leadership, a Department of Defense official warned that ending a Harvard-led project that was designed to identify new biological threats would cause “severe and immediate harm to national security.”. According to the official, Harvard is the program’s “top performing team,” and the research is a “leap-ahead capability” that is essential for battlefield surveillance.
The grant was revoked on the Secretary of Defense’s orders, however, as part of what Harvard’s attorneys claimed was a White House-led attempt to reduce funding regardless of its scientific worth or national significance.
Hours after Harvard publicly rejected a list of extensive demands to crack down on protests, dismantle diversity programming, and alter its admissions and hiring practices, the government froze an initial $2.02 billion freeze in research funding. Harvard then filed its first lawsuit against the Trump administration on April 21.
The Trump administration increased its cuts to Harvard since the initial freeze, removing the university from future federal grants and slashing an additional $450 million. In response, Harvard broadened the scope of its lawsuit.
Harvard initially filed the lawsuit in April, but it chose not to request a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, two legal remedies that could have prevented additional grant cancellations while the case was pending. In order to win the case outright, the University has instead requested a speedy resolution.
The filing on Monday reaffirmed that strategy, claiming that White House-led efforts to reduce Harvard’s funding were evidently coordinated and manifested in internal emails and directives.
Harvard also criticized the Trump administration’s public defense of the fling’s cuts. Harvard’s attorneys wrote that the university had already taken action to address the issue, despite the fact that federal officials have frequently raised concerns about antisemitism and ideological homogeneity on campus. These actions included enforcing disciplinary measures, limiting protests, promising to start a university-wide initiative on viewpoint diversity, and publishing the 311-page report from the presidential taskforce on antisemitism.
The University also stated that, in response to the task force’s findings, it had mandated that its schools submit an “action plan” by June 2025 that detailed actions to address discrimination and enhance the institutional climate.
In addition to its battle for funding, Harvard is also battling the Trump administration over a second lawsuit it filed to keep its ability to accept international students.
The University is contesting the Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to withdraw its authorization to accept international students in that different case, which endangered the legal standing of almost 7,000 students. After a judge last week extended a temporary block on the revocation, that case is still pending in federal court.
Harvard claimed in its most recent filing that the DHS’s action was unconstitutional retaliation and further evidence of a coordinated effort to punish the University for bringing its original lawsuit.
Perhaps President Donald Trump’s own statements strengthened Harvard’s argument. Trump explained his perspective on Harvard’s conflict with the White House to reporters on Wednesday, saying, “Every time they fight, they lose another $250 million.”. “.”.
He went on, “Harvard wants to fight.”. They’re getting kicked in the ass and want to show off their intelligence. “.”.
