Harvard Plans to Use Trump’s Haste Against Him as It Fights Funding Cut

Since President Trump resumed office three months ago, his administration has prioritized a governing style marked by rapid actions and dramatic, headline-making decisions.

Now, Harvard University is betting that the same fast-paced strategy used by the White House could be turned against it.

On Monday, Harvard filed a detailed 51-page lawsuit challenging the administration’s move to block billions of dollars in federal funding. Central to Harvard’s legal challenge is the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a longstanding statute in American law that outlines how federal agencies must create rules and enforce penalties. It requires agencies to follow specific steps and timelines, ensuring fairness and transparency in government actions.

This legal framework — though often seen as technical and dry — has become a powerful weapon in numerous lawsuits filed against the Trump administration this year. It has been at the heart of legal efforts to undo funding cuts to agencies like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), public school systems, and even Voice of America.

While the Trump administration’s breakneck pace has dominated headlines, the legal battles unfolding in courtrooms will determine whether this approach results in enduring policy outcomes.

In this particular lawsuit, Harvard is pushing back against allegations made by a new White House task force on antisemitism. The task force was created to act more quickly than traditional federal civil rights investigators, aiming to accelerate investigations and take faster action against what it views as rising antisemitism on college campuses.

The administration claims it attempted to work collaboratively with Harvard, encouraging the institution to engage constructively. “We wanted them to meet us at the table in good faith,” said Harrison Fields, a spokesman for the White House. “But instead of working with us, Harvard chose theatrics. They know better than anyone that noncompliance with federal law jeopardizes their access to federal funding.”

However, Harvard argues that the administration’s approach crossed legal lines. The university claims it was hit with a slew of demands that included, among other things, auditing faculty for instances of plagiarism and political leanings, as well as restructuring its admissions and hiring practices. Harvard insists that these requirements constitute an unconstitutional overreach and violate procedural protections guaranteed under the APA.

Moreover, Harvard contends that the administration has acted in a disorderly, chaotic manner — bypassing due process and established regulations. According to Harvard officials, a list of demands emailed to the university on April 11 was actually sent in error, a fact that Trump administration officials later acknowledged. Despite conflicting accounts about the mistake, the scope and intensity of the demands convinced Harvard that it had to take a legal stand.

Recent attempts by the administration to reopen discussions were rejected by the university, which instead opted to move forward with its lawsuit. In its filing, Harvard accuses the federal government of acting unlawfully, asserting that officials “failed to comply with their own regulations before freezing Harvard’s federal financial assistance.”

The complaint further argues that the administration misused Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs. According to Harvard, Title VI requires a clearly defined process before funding can be suspended — a process the Trump administration ignored.

Elsewhere in the suit, Harvard alleges that the government’s actions were “arbitrary and capricious” — legal terminology indicating that the administration failed to offer a logical or justifiable rationale for its decisions.

For Harvard and other universities that are now entangled in legal disputes with the federal government, the Administrative Procedure Act has become a vital safeguard. These institutions are well-versed in the often lengthy and meticulous processes that traditionally guide the allocation of federal research grants. In fact, in February, universities relied on the APA to contest new federal guidelines that sought to alter reimbursement rules for overhead costs associated with NIH-funded research. More recently, the law was invoked again when the Department of Energy proposed cutting research budgets.

Harvard’s current legal approach mirrors these earlier efforts. But in this case, the stakes are higher: the administration appears intent on using Harvard as a symbolic target to send a message to other elite institutions. The abrupt and aggressive tactics are part of a larger strategy to pressure higher education broadly.

To many of the Trump administration’s allies, the urgency shown in tackling what they describe as widespread antisemitism on campuses is not only justified — it is overdue. Traditional civil rights investigations, they argue, take too long and leave affected students without timely resolution.

“I’ve long been concerned about the slow pace of these investigations,” said Kenneth L. Marcus, who oversaw civil rights enforcement at the Education Department during Trump’s first term. He noted that extended delays often leave students vulnerable and without recourse. His comments came before the dispute with Harvard had fully escalated.

Catherine Lhamon, who served as assistant secretary for civil rights under both the Obama and Biden administrations, also acknowledged the slow nature of the process. While she agrees that delays are problematic, she emphasized that Congress established these procedures deliberately. “At a pivotal moment in our nation’s history, Congress decided that there should be strong civil rights protections, accompanied by a rigorous process for determining when those rights have been violated,” Lhamon explained. “What we’re witnessing today reflects the very fears Congress had — that someone might try to use these protections as a political weapon.”

In addition to invoking administrative law, Harvard has also touched on constitutional principles — particularly First Amendment rights — which often carry more emotional and symbolic weight in public debate. Even so, part of Harvard’s First Amendment argument still rests on the Administrative Procedure Act, which bars federal agencies from taking actions that infringe on constitutional rights.

“Harvard is challenging the agency’s actions within the bounds of a comprehensive legal system,” said Osamudia R. James, a professor of administrative law at the University of North Carolina. “This is a classic case of holding the executive branch accountable to established legal norms.”

Harvard is also signaling that it expects a prompt resolution. The university has asked the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts to expedite the case, though it has not yet requested a preliminary injunction to halt the funding freeze temporarily. This suggests that Harvard believes the court could reach a swift and decisive ruling based on legal grounds that don’t require dramatic courtroom scenes.

To bolster its legal team, Harvard has brought on several prominent attorneys with significant experience in both Republican politics and federal law. Leading the legal charge is William A. Burck, a former official in George W. Bush’s White House and current ethics adviser to Trump’s business interests. He also serves on the Fox Corporation’s board.

Following him is Robert K. Hur, who served as U.S. Attorney in Maryland under Trump and later investigated President Biden’s handling of classified materials. Other members of the legal team include Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, a former Supreme Court litigator under President Bush; Steven P. Lehotsky, a former Justice Department official who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia; Mary Elizabeth Miller, who once worked for Justice Samuel Alito; and Katherine C. Yarger, a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas.

Also on the roster are Jonathan F. Cohn, a one-time deputy assistant attorney general, and Scott A. Keller, a former solicitor general of Texas who later advised Senator Ted Cruz.

Yet for some observers, the final outcome of the lawsuit might not be the real goal. “Even if the administration loses in court,” said Professor James, “it may still succeed in shaping public opinion.” If a large segment of the population comes to believe that elite universities are discriminatory, out of touch, or fail to serve their communities, that perception — whether or not legally justified — could be a long-term win for those critical of higher education.