(Photo courtesy of AP) “Harvard University community rally on April 17th.”

Conor Moyer

Connector Editor

On April 21st, Harvard University sued the Trump administration over its sweeping cuts of more than $2 billion in federal funds. With more than $9 billion at risk in total, it’s the sharpest confrontation yet in a campaign by the administration to wield unprecedented control over America’s universities.

This fight has implications that extend far beyond the Ivy League. As research institutions like UMass Lowell continue their partnerships with the federal government, the outcome of this legal battle could determine the future of academic funding, freedom, and governance for campuses nationwide. 

The Trump administration has targeted seven elite institutions so far, including Harvard, Brown, Princeton, and Columbia, threatening and suspending billions of dollars in federal research funds. The administration has justified its demands by claiming that the universities failed to curb anti-Semitic harassment on their campuses. However, the demands have gone much further, pushing for government oversight of academic departments, audits of faculty, and reporting of international students who have committed conduct violations.

Harvard refused to comply. The university filed a 51-page complaint in federal court in Massachusetts, alleging that the administration’s actions violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. According to the complaint, the administration froze billions in funds without proper due process or any demonstration connecting its concerns of antisemitism to the affected research. The freeze affected biomedical research projects on cancer, Tuberculosis, and ALS. 

After Harvard filed the lawsuit, Harvard president Alan Garber wrote in an open letter, “…the government’s April 11 demands seek to control whom we hire and what we teach. Today, we stand for the values that have made American higher education a beacon for the world. We stand for the truth that colleges and universities across the country can embrace and honor their legal obligations and best fulfill their essential role in society without improper government intrusion.”

In March, the Department of Education announced investigations into 60 universities that it said potentially failed to meet their obligations to Jewish students under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Harvard was one of them, UMass Amherst was another.

Weeks before this situation, UMass President Marty Meehan outlined to MassLive the fear that the administration’s attack on higher education has instilled in universities, as they rely on federal support. “It is a very uncertain time for all of higher education, whether you’re private or public.” 

Meehan detailed how federal support cuts don’t just jeopardize life-saving research at the UMass Chan Medical School, but also the financial aid packages that thousands of UMass students rely on every semester. “UMass as an institution, we get nearly a billion dollars in federal funding. [Over $500] million of that is in research, but there’s also another $425 million in federal student financial aid.” 

In March, Columbia University folded to the administration’s demands in an attempt to restore around $400 million in federal funding. The concessions included tightening disciplinary policies, increasing campus security, and placing the university’s Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies Department under expanded oversight. This move drew alarm from university leaders, students, and professors across the country who feared a national clampdown on academic freedom.

In contrast, Harvard is attempting to use the administration’s haste against it. The university argues that officials violated the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing legally required procedures, acting arbitrarily, and failing to adhere to their own timelines.

Harvard’s resistance may shape the legal and political future of universities across the nation. The outcome may not only affect the future of UMass’s ability to continue current research and provide financial aid, but also its autonomy in determining what it teaches and who it hires. UMass Lowell has every reason to pay close attention to how this ends.