Harvard Receives Broad Legal Support from Ivy Peers, Universities, and Over 12,000 Alumni in Fight Against Trump-Era Threats
Twenty-four universities — including five members of the Ivy League — and more than 12,000 Harvard alumni have stepped forward to support Harvard University in its ongoing legal battle with the Trump administration, which has threatened to withhold billions in federal grants.
On Monday, Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown, and the University of Pennsylvania, along with other prominent institutions, filed an amicus curiae brief backing Harvard. They argue that the administration’s threat to freeze research funding would not only affect Harvard, but also harm the broader ecosystem of academic research and innovation in the U.S. The interconnected nature of university-led scientific work, they contend, means funding cuts to one institution ripple across the academic landscape and threaten national progress in science and technology.
In a separate brief filed the same day, 12,041 Harvard alumni described the administration’s actions as a “reckless and unlawful” overreach, aimed at exerting political control over higher education. “The escalating campaign against Harvard threatens the very foundation of who we are as a nation,” the alumni wrote, calling on the court to protect academic freedom, liberty, and democratic values. Among the signatories were prominent figures such as comedian Conan O’Brien, author Margaret Atwood, and U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA).
Amicus briefs, while not filed by parties directly involved in the case, serve to provide legal and contextual insights to assist the court in its decision-making process.
The legal filings follow Harvard’s rejection in April of a government-issued list of 10 demands — including monitoring campus political views — purportedly aimed at addressing antisemitism. In response to Harvard’s refusal, the administration threatened to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts. Harvard subsequently filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the government’s actions.
The universities’ brief was also signed by other leading research institutions, including Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Only Cornell and Columbia were absent among the Ivy League schools.
The institutions emphasized the longstanding and productive partnership between academia and the federal government, citing past collaborations that led to groundbreaking achievements like the Human Genome Project and the development of COVID-19 vaccines. Research on diseases like Alzheimer’s, currently funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is an example of multi-institutional efforts that would be jeopardized by the proposed funding freeze.
“The work cannot continue at individual sites,” the brief noted. “MIT cannot use machine learning to uncover patterns, for example, without data from Princeton and Harvard.”
The universities warned that undermining federal research partnerships would hurt U.S. global competitiveness and risk pushing scientific breakthroughs overseas. “These cuts to research funding risk a future where the next pathbreaking innovation — whether a cure for cancer or Alzheimer’s, a military technology, or the next Internet — is discovered beyond our shores, if at all.”
MIT President Sally Kornbluth emphasized the importance of standing up in court to protect research funding. “Although the value to the public of federally funded university research feels obvious to us at MIT, we felt compelled to make the case for its countless benefits to the court and, in effect, to the American people,” she wrote in a message to the MIT community.
The Harvard alumni brief supports the university’s request for summary judgment — a legal ruling that would allow the court to decide the case without a full trial. The alumni argued that the administration’s end goal is to suppress academic freedom. “The administration seeks to claim the right to dictate who may enjoy the freedoms to learn, teach, think, and act.”
They also took aim at the administration’s stated rationale — combating antisemitism — calling it a pretext for unconstitutional interference. “We unequivocally condemn antisemitism and every other form of discrimination and hate,” the brief said. “Yet charges of antisemitism — particularly without due process or factual findings — should not be used to justify a political takeover of a university.”
According to the alumni, the administration’s demands “have little or nothing to do with combating antisemitism” and instead serve to undermine the very academic engagement and research that build inclusive communities and drive societal progress.
This sweeping show of support comes as part of a broader months-long conflict between the Trump administration and Harvard. Most recently, the university filed suit after the administration issued a proclamation restricting visas for international students enrolling at U.S. institutions, directly affecting Harvard’s global academic community.
