Harvard University appeared in federal court Monday to challenge the Trump administration’s decision to freeze $2.5 billion in federal funding, a move the university argues is both unlawful and an assault on academic independence. The hearing marks a high-stakes confrontation over whether the federal government can condition financial support on sweeping ideological and operational changes at one of the nation’s leading academic institutions.

The Justice Department contends that Harvard failed to adequately protect Jewish students from antisemitic harassment, particularly in the wake of contentious pro-Palestinian demonstrations following the 2023 conflict between Israel and Hamas. On those grounds, federal officials froze contracts and grants provided to the university, while also issuing a series of demands they said were necessary to restore compliance with civil rights law.

“Jewish students at Harvard have been subject to vicious and reprehensible treatment,” said a spokesperson for the Education Department, referring to a list of incidents that, according to the government, demonstrate systemic failures by the university to protect its community. Administration officials have accused Harvard of tolerating hostile environments and suppressing dissent in ways that violate federal anti-discrimination statutes.

In response, Harvard asserts that while it acknowledges isolated missteps in addressing antisemitic behavior, the administration’s sweeping measures overreach both legally and constitutionally. In legal filings, university attorneys argued that federal agencies did not follow proper procedures in cutting off funding—failing to notify Harvard in advance or provide an opportunity to respond—and that the government’s action amounts to political retaliation, infringing on the institution’s First Amendment rights.

“The federal government has not alleged a single contract breach, yet it is leveraging its financial power to control who we admit, who we hire, and what we are allowed to teach,” said a university official close to the legal team, speaking on condition of anonymity. Harvard maintains that nearly 40% of its research operations are supported by federal grants, and the extended freeze could result in job losses and interruptions to ongoing projects in science, medicine, and engineering.

Beyond the funding itself, at the heart of the dispute are the government’s conditions for reinstating support. According to court documents, the Trump administration demanded that Harvard dismantle its current governance structure, overhaul admissions and hiring to conform to “merit-based” standards, ban face coverings on campus, and bar recognition of certain student organizations. In addition, the university was told it must grant unrestricted access to student records—even bypassing legal requirements for subpoenas.

Harvard has rejected all of these points, asserting that they go far beyond the authority of the executive branch. “We cannot—will not—surrender our independence,” said President Alan Garber, who called the federal conditions a “fundamental threat to institutional autonomy.”

During oral arguments held on July 21, attorneys for both sides presented sharply divergent views of academic governance and civil rights compliance. Representing the university, counsel argued that the government’s actions were not only procedurally flawed, but deliberately targeted at suppressing speech and perspectives the administration finds disagreeable. Meanwhile, federal lawyers defended the freeze as a legitimate enforcement tool to uphold students’ rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Judge Allison Burroughs, who is presiding over the case, has not indicated when a ruling might be issued. Legal experts suggest that no matter how she rules, the case is likely to proceed to appeals, potentially reaching higher courts if the underlying constitutional questions remain unresolved.

The dispute also comes against a broader backdrop of rising scrutiny on elite universities. Some Republican lawmakers have criticized what they describe as an entrenched culture of “woke ideology” in higher education, while pursuing policies such as increasing taxes on university endowments and reexamining foreign student programs. Notably, Harvard was previously successful in blocking restrictions on international student visas in a related federal case—also presided over by Judge Burroughs.

As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome may carry sweeping implications for the relationship between federal authority and universities, especially in defining the line between lawful oversight and ideological coercion. Whether this case becomes a turning point will depend not only on legal interpretation, but on a broader national reckoning over speech, equity, and academic freedom.