Over 12,000 alumni and 5 Ivies throw legal support behind Harvard in high-stakes battle against Trump

Ivies and Top Institutions Join Harvard in Legal Fight Against Trump Administration
Harvard Alumni Call Government Actions 'Reckless and Unlawful'
Live Events
Push for Summary Judgment
FAQs
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
Over 12,000 Harvard alumni and 24 universities, including five Ivy League schools, have stood behind Harvard University in its legal fight against the Trump administration, which has threatened to cut billions of dollars in grants, as per a report.According to NBC News, Princeton, Yale, Dartmouth, Brown, and the University of Pennsylvania joined other institutions in filing an amicus brief supporting Harvard, arguing that the administration's move to freeze over $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60 million in contracts would not only hurt one university but undermine the foundation of American scientific research and economic competitiveness.ALSO READ: 'No Kings' protest set to become largest anti-Trump mobilization since he took office - key points to know Alongside these institutions, 12,041 Harvard alumni, including comedian Conan O'Brien, author Margaret Atwood, and Senator Tim Kaine, a separate brief, calling the government's actions 'reckless and unlawful,' way to gain control over the school and other higher education institutions, as per NBC News.The alumni wrote in the brief that, 'The escalating campaign against Harvard threatens the very foundation of who we are as a nation,' as quoted in the report. As per the brief, 'We embrace our responsibility to stand up for our freedoms and values, to safeguard liberty and democracy, and to serve as bulwarks against these threats to the safety and well-being of all,' quoted NBC News.According to the report, these institutions explained that the partnership between the government and academia has driven critical advancements, like 'The Human Genome Project' or 'Covid-19 vaccine'. So that would mean that funding cuts to even one school can hamper the research projects at other institutions, as per NBC News.The brief pointed out that, 'The work cannot continue at individual sites; MIT cannot use machine learning to uncover patterns, for example, without data from Princeton and Harvard,' quoted NBC News. It also highlighted that, 'These cuts to research funding risk a future where the next pathbreaking innovation — whether it is a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's, a military technology, or the next Internet — is discovered beyond our shores, if at all,' as quoted in the report.The Harvard alumni filed their brief because they support the institution's motion for a summary judgement submitted last week, and if granted, the summary judgement would allow the court to decide the case without a full trial, reported NBC News.Because the administration threatened to cut billions in federal funding unless Harvard agreed to certain demands, including auditing student viewpoints.Because many research projects are interconnected. A cut to one school's funding can affect progress at many others.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Hindustan Times

22 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

Was Trump legally authorized to bomb Iran? DOJ answers

Jun 23, 2025 06:24 AM IST A senior Justice Department official has noted that Donald Trump conducted the strikes against Iran under his Article II constitutional powers, in consultation with the White House counsel and the Justice Department. While the president does have broad authority to order the use of military force and to advance other national interests under Article II of the Constitution, Congress has the authority to declare war under Article I. Was Trump legally authorized to bomb Iran? DOJ answers(AP) According to the DOJ official, President Trump is also relying on memos written by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel under administrations of both parties, as reported by CNN. They added that if the conflict continues for a long period, the administration might need Congress' approval. However, they noted that 'bombing three nuclear sites' does not require congressional approval under Article I, and as the Trump administration has the backing of senior officials in the House and Senate, the White House is confident it is on solid legal ground. Previously, a White House official told CNN that Trump used 'his legal authority as commander in chief' to order the strikes on Iran. Meanwhile, Attorney General Pam Bondi is set to testify before the House. She is expected to be questioned about the issue, and could reiterate Trump's dependency on his Article II powers and the earlier memos from the Office of Legal Counsel. The US' bombing of Iran Trump recently announced that the US had launched strikes against three Iranian nuclear sites. The decision to involve the US directly came after more than a week of strikes by Israel on Iran. In a Truth Social post, Trump previously wrote, 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter.'

First Post

29 minutes ago

• First Post

Trump's MIGA push for Iran: Potus hints at regime change if Khamenei can't 'make Iran great again'

US President Trump publicly hinted at replacing Iran's regime — if it can't 'make Iran great again' — adding uncertainty to an already tense situation in the Middle East, though his administration does not appear fully confident in the idea. read more The Trump administration sent mixed signals to Iran on Sunday — with some US officials suggesting they were open to restarting talks after a surprise attack on three nuclear sites, while President Donald Trump raised the prospect of regime change. 'It's not politically correct to use the term 'Regime Change', but if the current Iranian regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a regime change???' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'MIGA!!!' The post marked a reversal from Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth's Sunday morning news conference, in which he detailed the aerial strikes. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'This mission was not and has not been about regime change,' Hegseth stated. The Trump administration has been delivering mixed messages to Iran – issuing tough, threatening remarks while simultaneously calling for renewed dialogue. This has created uncertainty over whether the president is trying to provoke Iran or unintentionally deepening the conflict with Israel. Prior to Trump's post on Sunday afternoon, his vice president, defence secretary, top military adviser, and secretary of state all projected confidence that any fallout would be manageable, and that Iran's relatively weaker military would eventually drive it back to the negotiating table. Hegseth had stated that America 'does not seek war' with Iran, while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes had given Tehran an opportunity to return to negotiations with Washington. However, the situation is not entirely within Washington's control. Tehran retains several levers it could use in response to the airstrikes, potentially escalating the conflict in the Middle East with global consequences. Iran could block oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, launch attacks on US bases in the region, carry out cyber-attacks, or accelerate its nuclear programme – which may now be seen as more essential following the US assault. This raises the question of whether the strikes will usher in a more brutal phase of warfare or lead to revived diplomacy out of caution. Domestically, the attacks quickly spilled into American politics, with Trump using part of his Sunday to criticise his opponents in Congress. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Having addressed the nation from the White House on Saturday night, Trump returned to social media on Sunday to lambast Representative Thomas Massie, who had criticised the president for acting without specific congressional authorisation. 'We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the bomb right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!),' Trump posted on Truth Social. At a joint Pentagon briefing, Hegseth and Air Force General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that 'Operation Midnight Hammer' involved decoys and deception, and encountered no Iranian resistance. Caine said the operation's objective – destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan — had been achieved. 'Final battle damage assessments will take time, but initial indications show all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' Caine added.

Hindustan Times

30 minutes ago

• Hindustan Times

Trump's Iran attack was ferocious. But has it actually worked?

'OPERATION MIDNIGHT HAMMER', as America called its strike on Iran, was a vast raid involving more than 125 military aircraft. It was the largest-ever strike by B-2 stealth bombers, and the first use in battle of the GBU-57, America's largest bunker-buster bomb. Seven bombers flew east over the Atlantic from Whiteman air-force base in Missouri on the 37-hour mission to Iran and back, helped by in-flight refuelling tankers and fighter jets to sweep the skies ahead of them. Decoy planes flew west over the Pacific to confuse anyone watching their movement. Dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles were also fired at Iran from submarines. Iranian forces did not respond. The scope and scale of the operation would 'take the breath away' of most observers, boasted Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary. PREMIUM Placards are laid on the ground as demonstrators protest against the United States joining with Israel in attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities, at a federal building in Los Angeles, California, U.S. June 22, 2025. REUTERS/David Swanson(REUTERS) He was at pains to say that the attack was a 'precision strike' aimed solely at nuclear facilities. Iranian forces or civilians were not attacked. Nor was America seeking regime change. 'As President Trump has stated, the United States does not seek war. But let me be clear, we will act swiftly and decisively when our people, our partners or our interests are threatened,' he said. Iran has 'every opportunity' to come to the table to negotiate a peace deal. But amid the self-congratulation, has the operation actually succeeded in destroying Iran's nuclear facilities? Donald Trump, who first announced the strikes on facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan on June 21st (they took place on the 22nd Iranian time), declared that the programme was 'totally obliterated'. General Dan Caine, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was more cautious. He said the bomb-damage assessment would take time to complete. The initial assessment was that 'all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction'. Satellite images released by Maxar, an American firm, later on June 22nd showed a series of craters on the mountainside. The B-2s dropped 14 GBU-57s on buried uranium-enrichment sites at Natanz and especially Fordow, which Mr Trump described as the 'primary' target (the image above shows Fordow before and after the attack). The Tomahawks struck Isfahan, a complex of facilities where Iran turns uranium metal into a gaseous compound and back, makes centrifuges to enrich the gas, and may have stored much of its stock of highly enriched uranium (HEU). The International Atomic Agency (IAEA) estimates that Iran had 400kg of HEU, concentrated to 60% purity, which is a short hop to weapons-grade (usually 90%). That would be enough for ten bombs, if the material were to be enriched further. Israel had already hit Natanz and Isfahan, and destroyed much of Iran's air-defence system, clearing the way for the Americans. But the site in Fordow, buried into a mountain, was beyond the reach of Israeli bombs. 'I have been there,' noted Rafael Grossi, the secretary-general of the IAEA, earlier this month. 'The most sensitive things are half a mile [around 800 metres] underground.' A European source gives the figure of 500 metres. Before the strikes Western officials disagreed on whether the GBU-57, or 'massive ordnance penetrator' (MOP), alone could obliterate Fordow. Some experts thought the site could be destroyed only with nuclear weapons, or by ground forces fighting their way into the site and blowing it up. In the end America used B-2s and MOPs for the job. These can burrow through 60 metres of standard concrete, but probably less if Iran was using strengthened concrete. Repeatedly striking the same spot allows them to strike deeper. David Albright, a former IAEA inspector who now leads the Institute for Science and International Security, a think-tank in Washington, argued prior to the war that Fordow was 'more vulnerable than people realise'. Israel had detailed knowledge of the building's designs, he noted, including knowledge of the tunnels: 'where they start, how they zig and zag, where the ventilation system is, the power supplies'. The site had only one ventilation shaft, which is visible in its plans and in historical satellite imagery showing the site's construction. Destroying that, he argued, could put Fordow out of action for 'a few years rather than a few months'. One weapons expert told The Economist that the post-strike images suggest that America might have targeted Fordow's ventilation and access tunnels. Moreover, even if America did not reach all parts of the Fordow complex, the powerful blasts might have done enough to damage or destroy the machinery inside. 'Uncontrolled vibration…is a centrifuge killer,' says Richard Nephew, a former State Department official who now works at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, another think-tank. 'That's why they're carefully balanced, heavily bolted down on the pads built for the purpose.' Iran's IR6 centrifuges, which make up more than half of those installed at Fordow, are more robust than the much older IR1s, which make up the majority at Natanz, notes Mr Nephew. But even they would probably be affected badly by a blizzard of MOPs. If Iran had powered down the centrifuges, that would help. But the process of doing so can cause them to crash, says Mr Nephew, adding that it is 'pretty unlikely' Iran will have been able to turn off and disassemble the machines in the time available. Fordow was originally a secret project, revealed by Western countries in 2009. The question now is whether Iran has other intact secret facilities and a sufficient stock of HEU hidden away with which to restart the programme away from prying eyes. Iran had previously threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If it does so now, IAEA inspectors would have no way to observe Iran's future nuclear work. Nevertheless, Israel's spies have displayed an extraordinary ability to penetrate Iran's nuclear enterprise and security forces, and have repeatedly assassinated nuclear scientists and generals. The Iranian project has been much more extensive and dispersed than the efforts of Iraq and Syria, whose reactors Israel bombed in 1981 and 2007 respectively. 'Will this look more like Syria 2007—where a nuclear programme was decisively ended—or Iraq 1981, where nuclear ambitions were strengthened, and repeated intervention was required?' asks Nicholas Miller, a non-proliferation expert at Dartmouth College. 'Assuming the current regime stays in power in Iran, my money is on the latter.'