Vidostream | News, sport and opinion from the Vidostream's US Edition

https://vidostream.com

As Harvard and Trump Head to Court, the Government Piles on the Pressure

President Trump suggested a deal was coming, but officials are still demanding more from the university, in a dispute over billions of research dollars.

Lawyers for Harvard University and the Trump administration will meet for a significant court hearing on Monday.Credit...Sophie Park for The New York Times
Lawyers for Harvard University and the Trump administration will meet for a significant court hearing on Monday.Credit...Sophie Park for The New York Times

President Trump crowed online in June that his administration might cut a “‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC” deal with Harvard University “over the next week or so.”

But as the White House and the university negotiated in the weeks that followed, no deal materialized to return the billions of research dollars that the government had frozen.

Now the two sides face a crucial court hearing on Monday in their lawsuit about financial obligations and academic independence, even as the Trump administration continues to pelt the nation’s oldest university to amass leverage in negotiations.

Last week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement served subpoenas to Harvard with sprawling demands that included payroll records, years of disciplinary files and any videos Harvard had of international students protesting on campus since 2020, according to two people familiar with the subpoenas, some of which were reviewed by The New York Times. The agency gave the university a breakneck one-week deadline for compliance.

Also this month, the administration formally accused the school of civil rights violations, arguing that Harvard had failed to protect Jewish people on campus. The government also complained to the university’s accreditor, which could eventually jeopardize Harvard students’ access to federal financial aid.

Even so, both sides have continued discussions toward a resolution of the government investigations into the school and the sprawling legal fights, though they have made limited headway. This account is drawn from conversations with four people familiar with negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid endangering the talks, and from public statements and court records.

Harvard leaders are well aware that a long fight with the government is perilous, threatening jobs, projects, reputations and academic independence. Some inside the university have feared that civil inquiries could become criminal matters.

Trump administration officials are looking to secure the most significant victory of their ongoing pressure campaign on academia. They are seeking to balance the long-term advantage of their powerful hold on the government with the short-term reality of working for a president who regularly favors dealmaking over systemic policy changes.

Negotiators have been exchanging communications about what the administration wants from Harvard and what the university may be willing to accept. But the outcome of the hearing in Boston on Monday could shift how much leverage each side has in the talks.

The case that will be before Judge Allison D. Burroughs began in April, after the Trump administration began to cut off billions of dollars in federal grants to Harvard. The university sued to restore the funding, contending, among other arguments, that the administration’s tactics were violating the university’s First Amendment rights.

On Monday, both Harvard and the government will try to persuade Judge Burroughs to rule in their favor outright. Her decision will be a milestone in a case that could eventually reach the Supreme Court on appeal and is already being regarded by West Wing officials and Harvard leaders as another bargaining chip.

Before the lawsuit, the administration sent Harvard an extraordinary list of conditions, including new policies on hiring, admissions and faculty influence, compulsory reports to the government and audits of academic programs and departments. Since then, although officials acknowledged that sending the letter was a mistake, the government has barely budged from the demands.

And Trump aides have regarded the university’s proposals as insufficient and anodyne.

“The Trump administration’s proposition is simple and common-sense: Don’t allow antisemitism and D.E.I. to run your campus, don’t break the law, and protect the civil liberties of all students,” Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, said. “We are confident that Harvard will eventually come around and support the president’s vision.”

Harvard declined to comment.

Drawing out the talks has some benefits, too.

Polls have suggested many Americans have become more distrustful of higher education, and the government’s campaign has demonstrated the vulnerabilities of elite schools, which Mr. Trump and his allies argue have been captive to liberal ideas. Trump administration officials have especially reveled in squeezing Harvard, which, like other major universities, is deeply reliant on federal research money.

But even though polling also suggests that many Americans disapprove of the Trump White House’s tactics toward colleges and universities, administration officials have given little indication they want to end a clash that some Republicans have long craved.

University officials have been trying to balance a sense of urgency with the advantages Harvard has drawn from the fight, including a show of public support.

Besides the possibility of reclaiming leverage in the talks, university officials feel that a favorable ruling from Judge Burroughs would give them greater credibility and cover to sell students, faculty members, donors and others on a settlement.

Some officials expect the university to insist that any accord grant a judge or another figure the authority to enforce the terms. Harvard, wary of the White House’s whipsaw approach to deal making, is not believed to be interested in an informal arrangement.

Lawrence H. Summers, a former Harvard president who has sometimes sharply criticized the university, said that the absence of an agreement would leave Harvard vulnerable to new inquiries and a steady flow of court fights. He said he believed that the “vast majority” of people with close ties to the school “want to see all of this in the rearview mirror, if that’s achievable.”

But Dr. Summers said that the conditions of any agreement will drive whether Harvard faces an internal rebellion.

“If they tell us we have to take certain books out of our library, we have to say no to that. If they tell us certain people can’t be on our faculty, we have to say no to that,” said Dr. Summers, who added: “If they tell us we’ve got to follow the law on reverse discrimination, we can say yes to that.”

Harvard, he suggested, should also be open to changing some of its leadership.

How hard of a bargain either side can drive is expected to become clearer on Monday, when lawyers for the university and the government go before Judge Burroughs for their first substantive oral arguments in Harvard’s signature case against the administration.

(Judge Burroughs is also presiding over another case involving the government’s quest to keep Harvard from enrolling international students. She has granted the university a series of interim victories in that matter.)

Harvard is expected to argue that the Trump administration is trampling on constitutional protections, as it seeks greater influence over the university’s operations. Harvard is also making an array of technical arguments, including that the government failed to follow long-established, written procedures for revoking funding.

The administration has argued that it had followed certain regulations and that the case is essentially a contract dispute. In a court submission, the Justice Department said that federal research funds were “not charitable gratuities.”

“Rather, the federal government grants funds to universities through contracts that include explicit conditions,” the Justice Department wrote, adding: “If they fail to meet these conditions, the grants are subject to cancellation.”

The government’s lawyers also contend that an 1887 law means that the dispute should be moved out of the Boston federal court entirely. Rather, they argue, the case should be heard in Washington by a specialized court that considers claims related to money.

Harvard, which has said that Judge Burroughs should keep the case because it involves constitutional questions that go beyond dollars and cents, suggested in court filings that the government was presiding over a jumbled assault. In one this month, the university told Judge Burroughs that even after the government said it was terminating many grants to Harvard, the Defense Department paid the university hundreds of thousands of dollars for a grant that had supposedly ended.

The government’s attempted hardball tactics against Harvard have a fan in Mr. Trump. After all, the president himself mused in April: “What if we never pay them?”

Linda McMahon, the education secretary, told Mr. Trump during a cabinet meeting on July 8 that the administration was “negotiating hard” with Harvard and Columbia University, another elite school that the White House has targeted.

“It’s not wrapped up as fast as I wanted to, but we’re getting there,” Ms. McMahon said as the cameras rolled.

ICE’s subpoenas arrived in Cambridge later that afternoon. Harvard made no secret of its disdain the next day, openly eschewing any talk of reconciliation and decrying the subpoenas as “unwarranted.”

“The administration’s ongoing retaliatory actions come as Harvard continues to defend itself and its students, faculty and staff against harmful government overreach,” the university said. Harvard, it added, was “unwavering in its efforts to protect its community and its core principles against unfounded retribution by the federal government.”

Alan Blinder is a national correspondent for The Times, covering education.

Michael S. Schmidt is an investigative reporter for The Times covering Washington. His work focuses on tracking and explaining high-profile federal investigations.

Michael C. Bender is a Times correspondent in Washington.

Author: Alan BlinderMichael S. Schmidt and Michael C. Bender

Source: N.Y Times

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to browse, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
You did not use the site, Click here to remain logged. Timeout: 60 second