In general, when the public hears about the government directing resources to a school, people might think of the funding as charitable in nature. Perhaps, the thinking goes, public officials want to help students, so they appropriated some money accordingly.
But when Harvard University received federal funds, it wasn’t charity, and it wasn’t because the government wanted to support quality higher education or assist students. Rather, Harvard received scholarly research grants that were awarded after a competitive process. In other words, the university earned the money.
Donald Trump and his team nevertheless decided to cut off the grants — in legally dubious ways — as part of a multifaceted retaliation campaign. The question wasn’t whether Harvard would file suit, but when. As NBC News reported, that question now has an answer.
The suit, filed in federal district court in Massachusetts, accuses the administration of flouting the First Amendment and other federal laws and regulations. The 51-page complaint asks a federal judge in Massachusetts to declare the president’s ‘freeze order’ unconstitutional and to order the government to reverse any terminations of — or freezes to — federal funding.
“The Government has not — and cannot — identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, 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,” the lawsuit said.
“Nor has the Government acknowledged the significant consequences that the indefinite freeze of billions of dollars in federal research funding will have on Harvard’s research programs, the beneficiaries of that research, and the national interest in furthering American innovation and progress.”
A White House spokesperson told The New York Times, in response to the litigation, “The gravy train of federal assistance to institutions like Harvard, which enrich their grossly overpaid bureaucrats with tax dollars from struggling American families is coming to an end.”
But again, whether Team Trump understands the relevant details or not, we’re not talking about a “gravy train.” The federal government invited bids and awarded research grants after a competitive process. It’s not as if Harvard approached Cabinet agencies, hat in hand, looking for a handout, to which the administration agreed out of a sense of magnanimity.
Also of interest is the university’s choice in legal representation: As the Times’ report noted, Harvard has “turned to two lawyers with ties to Mr. Trump and the administration.” William A. Burck, for example, served as an outside ethics adviser to the Trump Organization. Robert Hur, meanwhile, worked in the Justice Department during Trump’s first term and is perhaps best known for serving as the special counsel who investigated Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents.
As for how we arrived at this point, if you’re new to the story, the simmering dispute between the school and the administration reached a boiling point on April 11, when Harvard received a series of outlandish written demands from the Trump administration, including a “request” to install outside auditors who would monitor the school’s academic departments.
The university realized that failure to comply with the ridiculous demands would result in governmental punishment. But left with little choice, Harvard balked anyway. The retaliation was swift: Immediately after Harvard said it would not comply with the apparent extortion attempt, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants to Harvard. (There are federal requirements in place when imposing financial penalties like these, and the Republican White House appears to have ignored those requirements.) The Department of Homeland Security secretary also canceled nearly $3 million in agency grants to Harvard, and at Trump’s behest the IRS reportedly began scrutinizing the university’s tax-exempt status. The New York Times, citing multiple sources, reported that the original letter to Harvard “should not have been sent” and was “unauthorized.” White House officials didn’t deny that the letter was sent in error, but they refused to retract it, and remarkably, they blamed Harvard for not realizing that their over-the-top letter should not have been taken at face value. Harvard’s case has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee. Watch this space. This post updates our related earlier coverage.
Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."
Latest Post
Recommended
