Here’s my latest Trump and academia vlog report. If you’re new to this series, these videos are where I summarize what the Trump administration has been doing to higher education, and how colleges and universities have responded. Here are the latest developments since the last video, as of today, April 25, 2025.
Previous episodes here:
Their suit argues that the thousands of terminations, which to date have left more than 1,800 students without valid status, are “unlawful” and came “without warning, individualised explanation and an opportunity to respond”.
The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, which advocates for immigrant and international student rights, and several impacted students from institutions such as MIT and Boston University filed the suit in the District Court for the district of Massachusetts yesterday.
Not only have students been forced out of housing, jobs or their chosen institution mere weeks away from graduation, but the Trump administration’s crackdown on international students has “undermined’ institutions’ being able to “attract, retain, and effectively serve” students from overseas, the group warned.
The court is asked to find that the policy is unlawful and unconstitutional, reactivate the SEVIS records of affected students, halt the policy while the case is being fought and “vacate all improper SEVIS terminations”.
President and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance, Miriam Feldblum, warned that students would be put off from studying in the US because of the “fear and uncertainty diminishing our global competitiveness and reputation”.
“The unlawful termination of student records without due process strikes at the heart of higher education’s mission. Colleges and universities drive innovation, research, and workforce growth by fostering global talent – but they can’t do that when students’ futures are derailed without explanation,” she said.
“These actions deter future students from studying here in the US, and hinder campus administrators from carrying out their work by the arbitrary upending of established regulations and processes.”
Meanwhile, Sirine Shebaya, executive Director at the National Immigration Project – which is representing the Presidents’ Alliance – blasted the policy vas “not only lawless… [but] cruel” – marking “yet another manifestation of policies that fly in the face of both legal standards and common decency”.
These actions deter future students from studying here in the US, and hinder campus administrators from carrying out their work by the arbitrary upending of established regulations and processes
Miriam Feldblum, Presidents’ Alliance
While the surge in visa revocations was at first thought to mainly affect students who had expressed pro-Palestinian sympathies, international education stakeholders have been left baffled at a growing number being issued at institutions where no such protests had taken place.
Some students – including one unnamed Boston University graduate represented in the legal case – are reporting that their visas had been taken away due to minor traffic infractions. Others have been left confused after their visas were revoked despite having no criminal history.
Yet the State Department continues to back the policy.
“The Trump administration is focused on protecting our nation and our citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process,” a State Department spokesperson told The PIE News this week.
“The Department of State will continue to work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to enforce zero tolerance for aliens in the United States who violate US laws, threaten public safety, or in other situations where warranted.”
Elizabeth D. Kurlan, representing the Justice Department, informed the court that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is reactivating student records in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVIS) system while developing “a framework for status record termination” to guide future policies.
The abrupt reversals began Thursday afternoon when international students and university administrators across the country discovered that many previously terminated records had been unexpectedly restored in the system.
“It’s like somebody flipped a light switch on,” described Jath Shao, a Cleveland-based immigration attorney representing affected students.
The policy change follows weeks of controversy after the administration began revoking visas and terminating the legal status of thousands of international students, particularly targeting those who had participated in political activism or had previous legal infractions such as DUIs.
Higher education institutions have reported varying degrees of reinstatement. At the University of California, Berkeley, 12 of 23 affected international students have had their SEVIS records restored. Similar partial reinstatements have been reported at Rochester Institute of Technology and by attorneys representing students across multiple states.
Despite this development, significant concerns remain for international student populations. Legal experts also caution that terminated status records, even if reinstated, could potentially jeopardize future applications for permanent residency or other immigration benefits.
According to the Justice Department, ICE will continue to maintain authority to terminate records for legitimate violations of nonimmigrant status or other unlawful activity under the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, ICE will not terminate statuses solely based on findings in the National Crime Information Center, a computerized criminal history database that had been used to justify many of the recent terminations.
For higher education institutions, which rely heavily on international student enrollment for both academic diversity and financial stability, the policy reversals offer temporary relief while raising questions about the stability of immigration policies affecting campus communities.
Shao characterized the development as “a small but positive one” while emphasizing that more comprehensive protections are needed to ensure international students’ security within U.S. higher education institutions.
FIRE today filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers in their lawsuit against the Department of Justice and other federal agencies. FIRE argues that the Trump administration’s actions against Columbia University are unlawful and unconstitutional attacks on freedom of expression, freedom of association, and academic freedom. The brief’s summary of argument follows.
The federal government characterizes its abrupt revocation of $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University — and the government’s threat to revoke billions more if its demands are not met — as necessary to address anti-Semitism on campus in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests that sometimes veered into unlawful activity. Addressing discrimination is a worthy end. But it cannot justify the government’s flatly unconstitutional means here. While Columbia’s response to campus misconduct may raise questions about the university’s obligations under federal anti-discrimination law, there is no question about the government’s failure to meet its obligations under the First Amendment. The administration’s coercion is a blatant end-run around statutory safeguards and a flagrant attempt to jawbone the university into surrendering its institutional autonomy to federal officials. For the sake of Columbia’s students, faculty, and our free society, this government intimidation cannot stand unanswered.
The same federal statute that governs institutional responses to allegations of anti-Semitism — Title VI — requires funding recipients like Columbia to receive notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to come into compliance voluntarily before the government can terminate funding. These provisions protect students, faculty, and institutions from precisely the kind of repressive, capricious government overreach that now harms Plaintiffs. Yet despite its professed interest in addressing campus anti-Semitism, the administration chose to ignore entirely the lawful statutory means by which it may do so. Instead, it has instituted rule by fiat: arbitrarily declaring Columbia subject to punishment, cancelling hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and threatening worse to come, and leaving Columbia faculty and students at the mercy of unchecked federal authority under the specter of a hostile takeover.
This is unlawful. Just last year, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the government cannot jawbone private actors into punishing speech that the First Amendment protects from state intrusion. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo, 2024). But jawboning is exactly what the administration is doing to Columbia — except here, the government’s bullying is so extreme it might more accurately be called extortion. Wielding the threat of crippling financial consequences like a mobster gripping a baseball bat, the government forced Columbia to adopt a restrictive speech code that punishes disfavored or dissenting viewpoints. Not only would it be unconstitutional at a public university, the speech code also violates Columbia’s free speech promises and its right as a private entity to set its own rules regarding speech. The government further forced Columbia to surrender control of an entire academic department and to relinquish its right to make independent decisions about discipline and admissions — all of which violate longstanding precepts of academic freedom, institutional independence, and university self-governance.
These demands are unconstitutional. Again, just last year, the Supreme Court reemphasized the limits the Constitution places on the government in its interactions with private institutions. “On the spectrum of dangers to free expression,” the Court wrote, “there are few greater than allowing the government to change the speech of private actors in order to achieve its own conception of speech nirvana.” (Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 2024). As Defendants trample constitutional barriers in seeking to effectively outlaw certain political views on campus, this grave danger that the Court identified is fully realized.
The government’s gambit is not permissible simply because federal funding is involved. The Supreme Court long ago established that “even in the provision of subsidies, the Government may not ‘ai[m] at the suppression of dangerous ideas’” — and that the First Amendment demands judicial intervention if funding is “‘manipulated’ to have a ‘coercive effect.’” (Nat’l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 1998) (quoting Regan v. Tax’n With Representation of Wash., 1983). Few things could be more manipulative or coercive than revoking grants in an explicit attempt to override the expressive and associational rights of a private institution of higher education, its students, and its faculty.
This case illustrates the grave threat to core First Amendment freedoms posed by expansive — and here, extralegal and unbounded — conceptions of governmental power to address discrimination. For more than a quarter century, amicus FIRE has advocated against overly broad and impossibly vague campus speech codes promulgated under federal anti-discrimination law. To that end, FIRE successfully led the charge against the Obama administration’s attempt to pressure institutions to adopt a federal definition of “sexual harassment” — advanced as a national “blueprint” — that subjected wide swaths of protected speech to investigation and punishment. And yet as misguided as that initiative was, those pressure tactics pale in comparison to the scope and intensity of the unlawful shakedown Defendants mount here.
The government’s aggression against Columbia is alarming not just because it is unlawful and unconstitutional, but because its plain aim is “suppression of free speech and creative inquiry in one of the vital centers for the Nation’s intellectual life, its college and university campuses.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 1995). While Columbia was the first institution targeted by the administration, it has not been the last — the list of colleges facing coercive funding cuts and chilling demands is growing.
Addressing anti-Semitism does not and cannot require violating the First Amendment. Left unchecked, the administration will continue to deploy its distorted conception of federal anti-discrimination law as a battering ram against institutional autonomy and to seize for itself power to control permissible speech and instruction on our campuses. The stakes are high: “Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.” Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 1957). This Court must act now to protect freedom of expression, academic freedom, and our institutions of higher education from a hostile federal takeover.
On April 21, 2025, Harvard University filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration after the federal government froze $2.2 billion in federal research funding with threats of more cuts to come. The administration claimed Harvard failed to address anti-Semitism on campus, especially in the aftermath of Hamas’ attack against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and issued a list of demands in exchange for lifting the freeze.
These demands included adopting an ideological litmus test for foreign students, a comprehensive mask ban, an audit of disfavored academic departments, mandated reforms to the university’s internal governance structure, and eliminating diversity programs. Harvard argued that these demands and the funding cuts that followed violated its institutional autonomy and constitutional right free speech and academic freedom. In the lawsuit, the university is asking the court to restore its funding and block the government from imposing such requirements in the future.
FIRE agrees that the Trump administration’s approach is unlawful. Below are answers to some common questions we have received about the situation.
You’re right. Harvard isn’t entitled to federal funding. No institution is.
But Harvard — just like you (or FIRE, or any person or organization) — is entitled to a federal government that follows the law. And just as the law gives us certain protections, it also says the government can’t cancel funding on a whim, like the administration did last week.
Let’s take a closer look.
The vast majority of colleges and universities receive federal funds. These funds mostly consist of financial aid, like Pell grants, and grants for scientific and medical research. Of the $9 billion reportedly under review by the Trump administration, the Harvard Crimson estimates over $6 billion comes in the form of funding for five regional hospitals associated with the university, along with $2.7 billion in research funding at the university itself.
To be eligible to receive federal funding, institutions pledge to follow federal anti-discrimination laws. Those laws include Title VI, the federal law that prohibits colleges and universities from discriminating on the basis of race, color, and national origin. Since the George W. Bush administration, the federal government has interpreted Title VI as prohibiting anti-Semitic discrimination, too.
So far, so good. Colleges get government funding for students and research. The federal government in return gets (among other things) a commitment that those colleges won’t engage in or tolerate discrimination. That’s the deal.
And the deal has rules to protect colleges, the government, and the taxpayers who foot the bill from being negatively affected by arbitrary decisions. Before the federal government can pull funds from an institution, it has to take a series of steps.
First, the Department of Education must investigate complaints about discrimination. If it finds problems, ED is required to work with an institution to address those problems “by informal means whenever possible.” This is the most common process, where the department’s Office for Civil Rights enters into a “resolution agreement” with an institution to ensure compliance with Title VI.
If that doesn’t work, for whatever reason, here’s what happens next. In order to strip federal funding, the department must give notice to the institution again and provide an opportunity for an administrative hearing where the institution can challenge the determination. If the determination stands, ED then has to report this to Congress and give 30 days’ notice before it actually terminates funding to the affected programs. ED may also refer the matter to the Department of Justice for litigation.
In short, one way or another, the federal government is going to have to provide evidence and prove its case if it wants to pull out of the deal.
Those are a lot of steps, but they’re important. They protect students by making sure colleges live up to their obligations. And they protect colleges by making sure they have an opportunity to contest the allegations as well as a chance to make things right.
These rules are also important because they provide a safeguard against political bias, risk of error, and governmental overreach.
Even the federal government acknowledges the role of due process and following existing statute. In a federal court filing earlier this month, the government wrote, “But ED’s only power is to withhold funding from institutions receiving federal funding, after a robust process required by statute and aimed at ensuring compliance.” In that same court filing, the government reiterated that point, writing that “by statute and regulation, numerous steps aimed at ensuring compliance must occur before ED may withdraw funding.”
Without these rules, an administration could, for example, decide to dramatically expand the definition of “sexual harassment” to include core protected speech and to remove due process protections from sexual misconduct hearings, using the threat of federal funding to force schools to go along with it. That’s exactly what happened under President Obama — and FIRE fought back.
And without these rules, nothing prevents the federal government from arbitrarily declaring a university in violation of federal law, yanking federal funding, and demanding fealty and censorship.
That’s what President Trump is doing now. And again, FIRE is fighting back.
No. As FIRE has consistently noted, some campus protests veered into violations of both campus rules and the law. Examples include when protesters took over buildings, blocked access and exit to and from areas of campus, disrupted classes, or committed acts of violence against Jewish students.
In responding to these incidents — or failing to respond — Harvard, Columbia, and other colleges may well have been in violation of their obligations under Title VI. If they refused to correct their mistakes as the process played out, revoking their funding might have been justified and legal.
But the process matters.
What FIRE is saying is that the law is important. Following it isn’t optional. It protects all of us — students, faculty, administrators, families, scientists, hospitals, and the entire country. The administration can’t just decide unilaterally to skip steps.
If you support President Trump — or just don’t like Harvard — remember this: Any power the president seizes to ignore the law now won’t magically disappear when he leaves office. It will be wielded by his successors, too. And this time, it might well target schools or other organizations you like.
It sure did — two years in a row, in fact.
But one of the reasons we created our rankings was to give colleges and universities an incentive to do better. Protecting expressive rights on campus is a big part of our mission, and Harvard has a long way to go. Indeed, Harvard (like Columbia) makes a politically popular target precisely because so many people resent its years of engaging in the kind of behavior towards dissenting students and faculty that FIRE was founded to combat.
But lately Harvard has been making an effort, and we won’t succeed by writing schools off. And we definitely won’t succeed by allowing the federal government to take them over, trading one dominant ideology for another.
You can’t censor your way to free speech.
In 1787, Thomas Jefferson declared that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” George Mason — the founding father for whom GMU is named — championed the right to resist tyranny, penning the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights that helped inspire the First Amendment.
Fast forward 250 years, and GMU is calling the police on a student for daring to echo those revolutionary sentiments in modern terms.
It seems GMU has forgotten its namesake’s legacy. So here’s a reminder: calling the cops over political commentary has no place at an American university bound by the First Amendment.
On April 16, GMU student Nicholas Decker published a Substack essay titled “When Must We Kill Them?,” a provocative piece exploring whether violence is ever justified as a last resort against what he perceives as tyranny under the Trump administration. The essay explicitly warns that force is only defensible when all peaceful and legal avenues have been exhausted. Decker invokes the founding fathers to argue that violence “is to be employed only in defense of our Constitution, and of democracy.”
The next day, GMU referred Decker to “state and federal law enforcement for evaluation of criminal behavior” and denounced his essay as “not the Mason way.” Then came a knock at Decker’s door from the Secret Service. After reviewing his words, they agreed he broke no laws.
GMU’s overreaction has sent a dangerous message: write something controversial, and the feds might show up at your door. That’s chilling and, frankly, un-American.
A university dedicated to free thought should know better. The First Amendment draws a clear line between unprotected “true threats” and core political speech. Speech is only a true threat when it demonstrates a serious, specific, and imminent intent to commit unlawful violence against a particular individual or group. That’s a high bar — and for good reason. It’s meant to protect public debate, especially about uncomfortable topics. Advocacy for violence, no matter how disturbing, remains protected unless it crosses that line.
Decker’s essay never comes close. It’s abstract, hypothetical, and lacks any indication of intent to commit violence. Asking about the moral propriety of force is philosophy, not a true threat. And while deeply offensive speech may upset many, that doesn’t make it unlawful, as intense political debate will inevitably offend someone.
But it should never have come to this. GMU’s overreaction has sent a dangerous message: write something controversial, and the feds might show up at your door. That’s chilling and, frankly, un-American. When administrators start acting like King George III, they’ve lost their way. Ironically, GMU’s behavior resembles that of UK speech police, where citizens are arrested for criticizing public officials online.
Thankfully, in America, the First Amendment answers the question of whether robust political debate is “criminal behavior.” Students expressing themselves on public issues is very much “the Mason way.” FIRE calls on GMU to ensure this mistake does not become an accepted practice.
FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).
In the days since Harvard University rejected the Trump administration’s demands, with billions in funding at risk, the U.S. president has weaponized multiple federal agencies to exert additional pressure on the university.
On April 11, the Trump administration sent the university a letter demanding changes to Harvard’s governance, admissions, hiring processes and more, signed by officials at the General Services Administration and the Departments of Health and Human Services and Education. Government officials argued in the letter that such changes were necessary because of alleged antisemitism and harassment on campus stemming from pro-Palestinian protests last spring.
After Harvard rejected those demands last week, the government retaliated within hours by freezing $2.2 billion in grants and another $60 million in contracts. The Trump administration is now reportedly planning to pull another $1 billion in funding. (On Monday, Harvard sued to put a stop to the funding freeze, which President Alan Garber argued was “unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.”)
Other federal agencies have also piled on.
On Thursday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced DHS had canceled $2.7 million in grants to Harvard, declaring the university “unfit to be entrusted with taxpayer dollars.” Noem also threatened to terminate Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which would render it unable to host international students, unless the university provided by April 30 “detailed records on Harvard’s foreign student visa holders’ illegal and violent activities,” according to a Thursday news release from the department.
DHS did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.
Reports also emerged last week that the Internal Revenue Service was preparing to cancel Harvard’s tax-exempt status, a move President Donald Trump has endorsed on social media.
“Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’ Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!” Trump wrote on Truth Social last week.
With Harvard standing firm, the president appears willing to wield the full power of the federal government to bring the university to heel. But what would that actually look like in practice?
If the Trump administration follows required legal processes, removing Harvard’s tax-exempt status would be a lengthy endeavor that experts say would likely take at least several months.
The process would begin with an audit, which itself could take a few months, explained Samuel Brunson, a professor at the Loyola University Chicago School of Law specializing in tax law.
“The IRS would have to do an audit of Harvard and determine that there were one or more reasons why Harvard did not meet the requirements for tax-exempt status,” Brunson said.
Once the IRS notified Harvard of its intent to revoke its exemption, the university would be able to appeal the decision directly to agency officials. If the IRS insisted on stripping Harvard of its tax-exempt status, the university could go to the courts seeking a reprieve. And if the courts sided with the federal government, Harvard could continue to fight by appealing the decision.
While stripping universities of tax-exempt status is rare, it has happened before.
In 1970, the IRS informed Bob Jones University, a private religious institution in South Carolina, that the agency planned to strip its tax-exempt status over racially discriminatory policies. At the time, the university, founded by its namesake evangelist, did not accept Black applicants—a policy it maintained until 1975, when it opened its doors only to married Black applicants, to avoid the possibility of challenging the institution’s strict opposition to interracial relationships. (Policies barring interracial relationships remained in place until 2000.)
The university filed suit in 1971, prompting a legal fight that lasted until 1983, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of stripping BJU’s tax-exempt status. Justices found that the government’s interest in eradicating racism superseded the tax burden placed on Bob Jones. The university eventually regained its tax-exempt status in 2017, during Trump’s first term.
Brunson expects the government to make a similar argument about Harvard.
“My assumption is that the Trump administration is going to argue that Harvard violated a fundamental public policy, either by not reining in pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protesters enough, or something related to [diversity, equity and inclusion],” Brunson explained.
Still, he said “the chances of Harvard actually losing its exemption are at best minuscule.” Brunson believes that Harvard has a strong case, while the Trump administration’s argument is weak, “unless they have something up their sleeve that literally everyone is not aware of.”
The IRS did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed.
The government is also seeking to inflict pain on Harvard by cutting off its international student population, which would be a significant financial blow to the university. Harvard enrolled 6,793 international students in the 2024–25 academic year, according to the university website, which comprised more than 27 percent of its head count.
If the Trump administration follows legal avenues to strip Harvard’s SEVP certification—which would prevent it from hosting international students— the process would take some time. First the federal government would be required to provide notice of its intent to eliminate that certification, and Harvard would have 30 days to respond and take any necessary remedial action. If Harvard’s SEVP certification was stripped following its response, the university could challenge the decision in court, likely triggering a protracted legal battle before the issue was finally settled.
William A. Stock, managing partner at Klasko Immigration Law Partners, wrote by email that while colleges are subject to an SEVP recertification process every two years, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has the authority to conduct off-cycle reviews at any time. Such enforcement action is typically taken only when the federal government “comes into possession of information that may indicate possible noncompliance, or when major changes in a school’s operations require the school to update their registration with SEVP,” Stock explained.
In other words, the Trump administration would need a reason to strip Harvard’s SEVP certification.
“Essentially, if the government determines that there is an abuse of the SEVP and F-1 and J-1 [visa] designation by Harvard, they can move to take away their ability to issue those visas, which would ostensibly hamper their ability to run an international student program,” said Jonathan Grode, managing partner for Green and Spiegel, a firm that practices immigration law.
Experts noted that losing SEVP certification would cause a substantial loss of international students and hit research projects hard—even as such endeavors are already in flux from the Trump administration’s freezes on federal funding—given the high share of Ph.D. students who come from other countries. And even if Harvard doesn’t lose its SEVP certification, the mere threat of it could harm international recruitment.
In any case, the federal government has rarely revoked SEVP certification.
“The few cases of withdrawal of SEVP certification have involved schools who took serious shortcuts in compliance due to financial troubles, and a handful of cases where school administrators were charged criminally for abusing the student visa system,” Stock wrote.
For example, Herguan University, a private institution in California, lost its SEVP certification in 2016 after officials there were accused of a scheme to commit visa fraud. That case culminated in a prison sentence for the university’s chief executive officer. Herguan later lost accreditation and closed.
By threatening to limit Harvard’s ability to host international students, Grode believes the government is merely making a power play to get the university to yield to its demands.
“In a normal universe, there’s no way Harvard’s status as a provider of student visas would ever be challenged,” he said. “But as the federal government is trying to push and cajole Harvard to acquiesce on a number of different points, you’re seeing them leverage these ancillary types of activities.”
After a weeks-long standoff with the federal government over alleged antisemitism on campus, Harvard University sued the Trump administration on Monday over the $2.2 billion federal funding freeze enacted after the private institution rejected a far-reaching slate of reforms last week.
The Trump administration had demanded Harvard overhaul university governance, hiring, admissions and more, despite the fact that an investigation has yet to reach any conclusions.
President Alan Garber announced the move in a statement to the university community Monday, noting that while some officials in the Trump administration have claimed the demand letter was sent by accident, the federal government has acted in ways that suggest it was purposeful.
“Doubling down on the letter’s sweeping and intrusive demands—which would impose unprecedented and improper control over the University—the government has, in addition to the initial freeze of $2.2 billion in funding, considered taking steps to freeze an additional $1 billion in grants, initiated numerous investigations of Harvard’s operations, threatened the education of international students, and announced that it is considering a revocation of Harvard’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. These actions have stark real-life consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the standing of American higher education in the world,” Garber wrote.
The lawsuit comes as the Trump administration has threatened to cut off Harvard’s ability to host international students and reportedly sought to freeze another $1 billion in research funding.
“It has been clear for weeks that the administration’s actions violated due process and the rule of law,” said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. “We applaud Harvard for taking this step and look forward to a clear and unambiguous statement by the court rebuking efforts to undermine scholarship and science.”
Harvard’s lawsuit names the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Education, Energy and Defense, the General Services Administration, the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and associated agency heads. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
Early this month, the U.S. Department of Education issued an ultimatum to K-12 public schools and state education agencies: Certify that you are not engaging in discrimination under the banner of diversity, equity and inclusion, or risk losing federal funding — including billions in support for low-income students.
The backlash was immediate. Some states with Democratic governors refused to comply, arguing that the directive lacks legal basis, fails to clearly define what constitutes “illegal DEI practices,” and threatens vital equity-based initiatives in their schools.
After lawsuits from the National Education Association teachers union and the American Civil Liberties Union, the Department of Education agreed to delay enforcement until after April 24.
But states across the country, both liberal- and conservative-led, are worried about losing other aid: the pandemic-era money that in some cases they’ve already spent or committed to spending.
The Department of Education has long played a critical role in distributing federal funds to states for K-12 education, including Title I grants to boost staffing in schools with high percentages of low-income students, and emergency relief like that provided during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Conservative-led states — particularly Mississippi, South Dakota and Arkansas — rely the most heavily on these funds to sustain services in high-need districts.
The 15 states with the highest percentage of their K-12 budget coming from federal funding in fiscal year 2022 — the latest year with data available from the National Center for Education Statistics — voted for Trump in the 2024 presidential election. Similarly, 10 of the 15 states receiving the highest amounts of Title I funding in fiscal year 2024 also voted for Trump.
Mississippi and Kentucky have sent letters to the Department of Education expressing concern over halted pandemic aid.
The clash over federal funding comes even as the future of the Department of Education is murky, given President Donald Trump’s pledge to dismantle the department.
In letters to the Department of Education, state officials and superintendents in Illinois, New York and Wisconsin pushed back against the DEI directive.
New York officials said they would not provide additional certification beyond what the state already has done, asserting that there “are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI.” Illinois Superintendent Tony Sanders wrote that he was concerned that the Department of Education was changing the conditions of federal funding without a formal administrative process. Wisconsin Superintendent Jill Underly questioned the legality of the order.
New York State Department of Education Counsel and Deputy Commissioner Daniel Morton-Bentley noted that the federal department’s current stance on DEI starkly contrasts with its position during Trump’s first term, when then-Education Secretary Betsy DeVos supported such efforts.
Colorado and California also confirmed they would not comply with the Department of Education’s order.
While some states with liberal leaders are gearing up for legal battles and possible revocation of funding, conservative-led states such as Florida have embraced the federal directive as part of a broader push to reshape public education.
In Florida, anti-DEI laws have been in place dating back to 2023. In fact, many school districts and the state education department say they plan to follow the federal department’s directives, noting the similar state laws.
In March, the Department of Education abruptly rescinded previously approved extensions of pandemic-era aid, ending access to funds months ahead of the original March 2026 deadline.
When the Massachusetts governor’s office voiced concern over that decision, the federal department’s reply on social media was blunt: “COVID is over.”
Sixteen mostly Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Education and Secretary Linda McMahon, challenging the abrupt rescission of previously approved extensions for spending COVID-19 education relief funds.
But backlash against abrupt federal cuts to education has not been limited to blue states.
Mississippi’s Department of Education warned the cuts would jeopardize more than $137 million in already obligated funds, slated for literacy initiatives, mental health services and infrastructure repairs. “The impact of this sudden reversal is detrimental to Mississippi students,” state Superintendent Lance Evans wrote in a letter to McMahon.
The letter also outlines the state’s repeated — but unsuccessful — efforts to draw down millions in approved funds since February.
Shanderia Minor, a spokesperson for the Mississippi education department, told Stateline the agency is awaiting next steps and direction about the funds and federal directives.
In Kentucky, state Education Commissioner Robbie Fletcher told districts — which stand to lose tens of millions in pandemic aid — that abrupt federal changes leave them “in a difficult position,” with schools already having committed funds to teacher training and facility upgrades.
According to Kentucky Department of Education spokesperson Jennifer Ginn, the state has about $18 million in unspent pandemic aid funds left to distribute to districts. And districts have about $38 million in unspent funds, for a total $56 million that could be lost.
Lauren Farrow, a former Florida public school teacher, told Stateline that schools that receive Title I money are already underfunded — and the federal threat only widens the gap.
“Florida is pouring billions into education — but where is it going? Because we’re not seeing it in schools, especially not in Title I schools,” said Farrow. “I taught five minutes away from a wealthier school, and we didn’t even have pencils. Teachers were buying shoes for students. Why is that still happening?”
Tafshier Cosby, senior director of the Center for Organizing and Partnerships at the National Parents Union, a parents advocacy group, told Stateline that while most families don’t fully understand the various school funding systems, they feel the impact of cuts in the classroom.
Cosby said parents are worried about the loss of support services for students with disabilities, Title I impacts, and how debates about DEI may deflect from more urgent needs like literacy and teacher support.
“We’ve been clear: DEI isn’t the federal government’s role — it’s up to states,” she said. “But the confusion is real. And the impact could be devastating.”
Today, as a consultant working with teachers across Florida’s Orange County Public Schools — one of the largest districts in the country — Farrow says many educators are fearful and confused about how to support their students under changing DEI laws.
“Teachers are asking, ‘Does this mean I can’t seat a student with glasses at the front of the room anymore?’ There’s so much fear around what we’re allowed to do now.”
“There’s no one giving teachers guidance or even basic acknowledgment. We’re just left wondering what we’re allowed to say or do — and that’s dangerous.”
Amanda Hernández contributed to this report. Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.
Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
When it comes to fighting the current authoritarian threats coming out of the Trump administration, it’s important to remember that the symbol is the substance.
Frankly, this is always true of politics generally, but it’s more true and more important than ever in this moment.
We have an object example of this principle at work presently in the different responses from Harvard and Columbia when it comes to the threats to funding and demand for control by the Trump administration.
Columbia appeared to capitulate, forging an “agreement” to take steps sought by Trump, ostensibly to address antisemitism on campus, but this fig leaf was unconvincing, and Trump himself quickly dropped the pretense, as we all understand he has no interest in combating antisemitism and every interest in sending signals of domination and stoking fear that turns into pre-emptive compliance from other institutions.
Columbia looked unprincipled and weak in the face of the authoritarian threat, and the internal and external backlash against Columbia has been significant.
In contrast, once Harvard received the Trump administration demands, it crafted a careful public response, producing multiple public-facing communications meant to speak to different audiences (press, public, students, faculty, alumni) with different needs, including a letter from Harvard president Alan Garber to the university community that invoked a shared responsibility to defend the core values of the institution specifically and higher education in general.
To be fair, the call was much easier for Harvard than Columbia for several reasons. For one, Harvard had seen what happened to Columbia, where what looked like capitulation to outsiders still proved insufficient, because, again, Trump is interested in subservience, not reaching a mutual agreement. When Trump-world figures like JD Vance and Chris Rufo say they intend to destroy higher education, we should take them seriously.
The Trump administration demands of Harvard were also so extreme—amounting essentially to a takeover of the university—that it had no choice but to resist and take every possible step to rally others to the fight. The public thirst for an institutional response to Trump’s lawless power grabs has been so great that even the New York Times editorial board has weighed in with its approval of Harvard’s actions and the university’s explicit pledge to stand against violations of the rule of law.
An interesting bit of information in the form of an op-ed by Columbia history professor Matthew Connelly has come out that perhaps sheds additional light on Columbia’s actions. Writing at The New York Times, Connelly laments the hapless situation his institution finds itself in, first receiving blows from Trump and then being subjected to the “circular firing squad” of those who oppose Trump signing on to a collective boycott of Columbia.
Connelly argues that we should not view Columbia as “capitulating” to Trump because, “In fact, many of the actions the Columbia administration announced on March 21 are similar to those originally proposed last August by more than 200 faculty members.”
In other words, in agreeing with Trump, Columbia is only doing what it was possibly going to do anyway. Connelly goes on to argue that Columbia would never give in on key principles of institutional operations, and acting Columbia University president Claire Shipman has subsequently declared that Columbia would not sign any agreement that would “require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution.”
Columbia’s actions look similar to those taken by some of the big law firms that have reached vaguely worded “agreements” with Trump that have them pledging not to do “illegal DEI hiring” and to donate tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to pro bono causes favored by Trump. At Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall has gone digging into some of these agreements and found that there’s not much of specific substance to be found, the wording often so generalized and vague that it would be easy for firms to fulfill the agreements without doing anything beyond their usual patterns and practices.
I’m not entirely unsympathetic to Connelly’s irritation or the decisions by the big law firms; they thought they could make Trump go away with a little performative minor supplication and get back to their substantive work.
They’ve obviously misread the moment badly. I don’t know what more evidence we need to conclude that Trump intends to govern as an authoritarian. In both the cases of these law firms and Columbia University, the entire battle was over Trump being allowed to claim a symbolic victory over these institutions, to get them to be seen capitulating.
It is strange to say that the symbolic fight is the genuine battle over principles, but this is obviously the case. Trump wants to make others fearful of standing up to his authoritarian aims, so he will simply defy the rule of law until someone forces the victims to fight. There is no choice but to test the administration’s resolve. Trump’s response on Truth Social following Harvard’s action shows a lot of bluster aimed at tearing down Harvard’s reputation with a lot of right-wing tropes, but the rhetoric shows how nonexistent his substantive case is.
Any capitulation, real or even perceived, is a loss. Either choice will come with costs. Trump is going after Harvard’s funding and nonprofit status, and there will be significant turbulence for the university in the foreseeable future. But turbulence is not the same thing as a plane heading for the ground.
Harvard had its legal strategy prepared before the fight even went public. Law and precedent appear to be on its side, though this is not a guarantee of success. Trump seems determined to hold back whatever money he can in his ongoing attempts at coercion.
What we are learning is that there is no such thing as accommodating or reaching an agreement with an authoritarian project. Harvard’s stand is an important symbolic illustration of this, and because of the symbolism, it is proving to be hugely substantive.
Let’s hope it’s only the first example of how to fight back.