NASFAA Joins Amicus Brief in Support of Harvard’s Lawsuit Against Trump Administration
By Maria Carrasco, NASFAA Staff Reporter
NASFAA joined over two dozen higher education organizations in an amicus brief submitted on Monday in support of Harvard University’s lawsuit against the Trump administration, after the administration froze billions of dollars in funding for federal research grants.
Earlier in April, Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Department of Education (ED) after it froze over $2.2 billion in federal research grants, claiming that Harvard must make changes to its admissions policies, conduct academic program reviews, eliminate its diversity initiatives, and more. Harvard alleged in the lawsuit that this funding freeze is unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.
The amicus brief, led by the American Council on Education, supported Harvard’s lawsuit, claiming that the Trump administration’s actions violate the First Amendment, undermine the separation of powers among the branches of the government, and exceed executive authority.
“The executive branch has made an unprecedented attempt to punish a university it disagrees with for not ceding control over the institution to the administration,” the brief reads. “America's colleges and universities are not part of the federal government. Of course, they must abide by all applicable laws—federal, state, and local. But their receipt of research grants or other funding support does not obligate them to adopt the governance structure or balance of viewpoints demanded by any federal official.”
Harvard’s struggle with the Trump administration coincides with federally imposed caps on research funding specifically targeting the indirect costs associated with research grants, a move that could have severe impacts on higher education institutions that depend on research funding.
Already, institutions across the country are considering or enacting tuition hikes, with some specifically citing the Trump administration’s cuts to federal research funding as a driving factor.
“We felt it important to join the amicus brief and stand with our colleagues in defending higher education’s decision-making autonomy related to education, governance, financing, and community service that has driven innovation and contributed to our nation’s strength and prosperity,” said Melanie Storey, NASFAA president & CEO. “In the face of federal challenge to that autonomy, the resulting uncertainty and financial strain on our institutions impact all our collective work.”
Specifically, the brief alleged that under the First Amendment, the government “cannot dictate how institutions structure their governance, educate their students, and serve their communities.” Additionally, the organizations argued that the Trump administration is not empowered to “punish” or “destroy any institution for refusing to accede to unlawful demands.”
Lastly, the brief noted that the freeze in federal research grant funding, if left unchecked, could endanger the entire national research system, which has made U.S. higher education “the envy of the world.”
“If federal officials in 2025 are permitted to force universities to cater to whoever holds the political power of the moment, it will happen again and again, in 2028, 2032, 2036, and beyond, to the detriment of this Nation,” the brief reads. “Future federal funding freezes could target research that contradicts a particular administration's claims, universities that are politically unpopular or have a religious mission, or colleges that refuse to hire faculty who are friends of the administration. Nothing less is at stake here than the ongoing ability of universities to tackle our toughest medical, scientific, and technological challenges, to train our country's workforce, and to teach our future leaders.”
Oral arguments for this lawsuit are scheduled for July 21. A decision may be made before the start of the fall semester.
Publication Date: 6/11/2025
David S | 6/12/2025 6:39:27 PM
Well Lee Ann, you didn't cite any legal proceeding in which they were found guilty of breaking any law, and that's the way these things work. There are ways that funding such as Title IV participation and research contracts can be discontinued that are very clearly spelled out, but "because the president says so" isn't one of those ways.
Lee Ann T | 6/12/2025 12:15:10 PM
David S. to answer your question they violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I've seen to response from Harvard to their admission practices as they continue the use of racial preferences.
Victoria M | 6/12/2025 9:47:12 AM
Thank you, NASFAA, for advocating on behalf of institutional autonomy. Whether Harvard "needs the money" is irrelevant. This is about overreach that would harm our institutions and students.
Armand R | 6/11/2025 7:49:05 PM
No thank you.
David S | 6/11/2025 2:17:48 PM
Darren, while lawmakers stumble over each other to give tax cuts to billionaires, do you really believe that "Harvard doesn't need the money" is a strong argument? That's in addition to the fact that federal funding such as institutional Title IV allocations and scientific and health research grants are not based on the size of the school's endowment.
Darren C | 6/11/2025 2:0:05 PM
This information is useful to consider, since it was completely left out of the article. Harvard’s $53.2 billion endowment could enable self-sufficiency without federal funding. A manageable annual payout could cover the operating budget, including financial aid, faculty, research, and infrastructure. Tuition, donations, and unrestricted funds further reduce reliance on federal support.
Harvard’s limited endowment spending, due to ~70-80% donor restrictions and a 5% payout, drives reliance on federal grants for research. This offsets costs the endowment could cover, contributing to rising tuition as external funds bridge budget gaps.
Harvard prioritizes endowment growth via aggressive investments in equities, hedge funds, and private equity, managed by the Harvard Management Company. A low 5% payout preserves principal, limiting spending that could lower student costs while using federal taxpayer funds for research, favoring expansion over affordability.
Harvard’s claim that a federal grant freeze could “endanger the national research system” is alarmist. Its $2.2B payout could cover research costs (e.g., $1.1B in 2023 federal grants), showing it can fund research independently, misaligning the claim with its financial strength. But unfortunately, that’s lawfare and politics these days.
Ben R | 6/11/2025 1:35:29 PM
If the concern is over waste, fraud and abuse Harvard seems like the wrong place to focus their attention. Very few of their students rely on federal student aid dollars. Something like less than 3 percent of their students borrow federal student loans and the few who do tend to pay them in full. Perhaps they should be looking at institutions that rely the most heavily on federal aid sources, loans in particular, and whether their students pay down principal on their loans. That is both 1) more costly and 2) in their purview.
David S | 6/11/2025 12:47:28 PM
Lee Ann, please explain what laws Harvard (or any other school that have had funds appropriated by Congress taken away by the executive branch) broke and how it was determined that they did so.
Bee S | 6/11/2025 12:30:28 PM
Thank you NASFAA for taking a stand with Harvard and articulating the necessity for academic freedom and the continued existence of our national research programs without the interference of the political whims of whoever happens to be president!
Carolyn M | 6/11/2025 11:39:38 AM
I am in agreement with Lee Ann T, and disappointed to see this headline.
Lee Ann T | 6/11/2025 11:0:19 AM
I am unclear how anyone can support Harvard in response to their handling of antisemitism, Palestinian demonstrations, discrimination on hiring practices and admissions on their campus. But yet some want to continue to fund such radical practices. This Administration is bringing America back to where it belongs. Safe for all Americans, in all cities and all campuses around our great country. Our students need to be safe from such mutineers. Harvard was receiving federal funding and they should abide by the rules and laws that go with that funding.
David S | 6/11/2025 9:20:59 AM
Thank you for doing the right thing, NASFAA. This administration's rationale for dismantling the Department of Education was that the federal government has no role in education. We can debate that all day, but if that's their belief, they can't then turn around and tell colleges who to admit, who to hire, what to teach, and what those on campuses are allowed to say or believe. That's the exact opposite of the federal government having no role in education; it's the federal government controlling education, similar to what we see in Hungary.
But this is not just higher education's battle; I hope that other entities, such as media outlets, legal organizations, advocacy groups for various populations and causes, museums and arts organizations and others join in, because this is similar to the attacks on them as well.
You must be logged in to comment on this page.