More than 12,000 alumni from Harvard University have rallied behind their institution, calling on a federal judge to consider an amicus brief that aims to protect the university from what they label as a significant threat tied to the Trump administration’s freeze of nearly $3 billion in federal research funding. This appeal, submitted on Monday, marks a notable display of support following Harvard’s legal action against the White House, initiated in April.
The 14-page amicus brief asserts that the administration’s actions are a broad and unlawful attempt to exert control over Harvard’s academic priorities, thereby undermining free inquiry at the university. It warns that the funding freeze jeopardizes not only Harvard’s research mission but also the integrity of American higher education as a whole.
The alumni outlined their concerns in strong terms, claiming, “The Government’s end goal is to narrow our freedoms to learn, teach, think, and act.” This filing aims to bolster Harvard’s motion for summary judgment, seeking to resolve the case without necessitating a full trial.
Signatories include a diverse group ranging from the Classes of 1950 to 2025, encompassing all 12 of Harvard’s schools. Among those who added their names are television host Conan O’Brien, novelist Margaret Atwood, and Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey. Additionally, several current members of Congress, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senators Tim Kaine and Richard Blumenthal, also lent their support.
Notably absent from the brief are members of Harvard’s governing bodies, the Board of Overseers and the Corporation. The Harvard Alumni Association did not organize this initiative, with no involvement from current university officials in the brief’s drafting. The independent effort was primarily led by alumni associated with Crimson Courage, a group that has vigorously defended Harvard amid mounting tensions with the administration.
In their submission, the alumni emphasized the potential negative implications of the funding freeze, arguing that it could hinder innovation and economic growth, which are commonly derived from the university’s research activities. They referenced a 2015 study from Harvard Business School, which found that ventures founded by alumni employ over 20 million people globally and generate more than $3.9 trillion in annual revenue.
The brief articulated a commitment to the unfettered pursuit of knowledge, asserting that academic freedom—protected by the First Amendment—is at risk due to governmental overreach. It contends, “Values cannot be imposed by fiat,” warning that such actions contradict the essence of open inquiry and the pursuit of truth.
The Trump administration’s funding freeze began in April following Harvard’s decision to challenge federal demands, initially halting $2.2 billion in funding. The administration later expanded the freeze and prohibited Harvard from receiving any new federal awards. Alumni argued that this tactic violates due process, leveraging coercion to force compliance.
As the legal battle continues, Federal Judge Allison D. Burroughs remains tasked with determining whether to accept the alumni brief. The alumni did not seek to file in support of a second lawsuit Harvard has against the Department of Homeland Security regarding the institution’s ability to host international students. However, they expressed support for Judge Burroughs’ earlier ruling that blocked a DHS order affecting the university.
On the same day, six additional universities, including Georgetown and Stanford, moved to join a prior amicus brief supporting Harvard, alongside a diverse array of organizations, such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Jewish Voice for Peace, all unified in their defense of the institution.
The groundswell of support comes amid increased activism among students and alumni. Following Harvard’s decision to stand firm against federal demands, donations have surged, with University President Alan M. Garber receiving enthusiastic acclaim at recent university events.
Oral arguments for the case are set for July 21, with supporters of the defendants expected to submit additional briefs by June 23.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI, and the details may not be fully accurate. Any inaccuracies or requests for removal, retraction, or corrections can be sent to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.