Harvard vs. Washington – How Trump’s Administration Attacked Science and Now Faces Court - Funding for Radio Free Europe Cannot Be Cut

It is a case that reaches far beyond the campus of Cambridge: On Monday, the storied Harvard University defended itself before the federal court in Boston against a massive intervention by the U.S. government under President Donald Trump. At stake is nothing less than the allegation that the White House arbitrarily cut 2.6 billion U.S. dollars in research funding – as political punishment for Harvard’s resistance to a campaign by the administration. It is a symbolic legal battle: academic freedom versus political pressure. Science versus ideology. And Harvard versus Trump. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs listened extensively to the university’s arguments during the hearing. Harvard attorney Steven Lehotsky accused the government of linking federal grants “to the condition that the university surrender control over what professors and students are allowed to say.” The funding cuts, he said, were a response to a letter dated April 11 – issued by a federal antisemitism task force, demanding that Harvard change its approach to freedom of expression on campus. Harvard refused. The consequence: an unprecedented collapse in public funding, which particularly crippled medical, security-related, and cancer research. In its filings, the university argued that the abrupt termination of projects combating cancer, supporting veterans, and enhancing national security had no connection whatsoever to the allegations of antisemitism. The government, on the other hand, claimed it was a “fundamental reassessment” related to the policy alignment of federal support. But Judge Burroughs indicated that she viewed this stance with skepticism. “I don’t see any documented process by which one could determine whether Harvard adequately addressed antisemitism,” she stated. “The consequences, constitutionally speaking, are staggering.” No decision was issued immediately; the ruling is expected in writing.

Harvard, which holds the largest endowment of any U.S. university – most recently around 53 billion dollars – has begun to self-fund a portion of its research. But the university made clear that it cannot fully absorb losses amounting to billions. In particular, the medical schools, the Broad Institute, and several international research collaborations have since come to a standstill or been drastically scaled back. A court victory could not only rescue Harvard but establish a precedent for the protection of academic independence – at a time when political interference in universities is increasing nationwide. Beyond Harvard, the authoritarian restructuring of the state by the Trump administration also dominates headlines this day: In Texas, the president is pushing for redistricting to secure at least five additional Republican seats in the House of Representatives. In Washington, Trump ordered the closure of the EPA’s longstanding research office – thousands of scientists will lose their jobs. Instead, the president announced a “more practical, solution-oriented science unit” to be led by politically loyal officials. At the same time, nearly 300 NASA employees – including six former astronauts – publicly voiced opposition to Trump’s budget cuts: In an open letter, they criticized the loss of safety standards, the sell-off of long-term research goals, and a weakening of the national space program.

Cracks are also visible in foreign policy: Trump’s administration was forced to accept a court ruling that it may not suspend funding for Radio Free Europe without due process. A federal judge in Washington ruled that the pro-democracy media network must continue to receive funding for the time being – as originally approved by Congress. The Trump administration had sought to grant the budget only under new, restrictive conditions, which would have jeopardized the outlet’s editorial independence. Meanwhile, geopolitical struggles over influence, alliances, and authoritarian shifts continue to unfold on the world stage: As Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio welcomed Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in Washington, the latter reaffirmed the existing defense pact with the U.S. The backdrop is China’s aggressive posture in the South China Sea – and Trump’s threatened 20 percent tariffs against the Philippines should new trade terms not be agreed upon by August 1. The U.S., Hegseth confirmed, stands “for peace through strength.” Marcos, in turn, emphasized that the defense treaty remains the “foundation” of the bilateral relationship. The image of the day, however, remains Harvard: a university in court, a president who has made science his enemy – and a judge whose decision could not only rescue research but redefine the limits of political arbitrariness.

Investigative journalism requires courage, conviction, and means.