SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
federal funding
Trump’s Lawless Attack on Harvard Is Like None Before
Trump is determined to make an example of Harvard so that other universities and institutions with money and power will do his bidding.
Jun 26, 2025
This month, our firm filed a friend of the court brief in the Harvard case on behalf of 18 former government officials who were responsible for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the law the Trump administration relies on to justify termination of billions of dollars in federal funding to the university. The signatories to the brief are senior career and non-career appointees who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations from the 1970’s to January of this year.
One of those former officials is David Tatel, a highly respected retired judge who served as director of the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) under President Jimmy Carter, and later as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the nation’s second highest court. Judge Tatel discusses his experience overseeing Title VI enforcement in the brief. It illustrates just how lawless, destructive, and dangerous President Donald Trump’s vendetta against Harvard has become—and how different it is from any Title VI enforcement action that has gone before.
Title VI requires institutions that receive federal funds to follow civil rights laws. Institutions that discriminate can lose their funds, but it is an option of last resort.
Rather than conducting a proper investigation with detailed findings, engaging in good-faith negotiations, and allowing Harvard an opportunity to defend itself, Trump moved immediately to the nuclear option that hurts everyone.
Before funds are cut, the government must conduct a proper investigation to determine if discrimination exists and the law has been violated; it must make genuine, good faith efforts to work with the fund recipient to secure voluntary compliance; and where settlement is unsuccessful, the recipient must have a chance to present its case in court.
These constraints are written into Title VI and the regulations federal agencies must follow. They protect the interests of universities like Harvard, but more important, they maintain the delivery of services to the ultimate beneficiaries of federal programs as much as possible. In the case of Harvard, those beneficiaries include not just its students and faculty, but millions around the world who benefit from advances in science, medicine, and technology that flow from Harvard’s research programs and facilities.
Judge Tatel refers to fund termination as the nuclear option: “it is like dropping an atom bomb—everyone gets hurt.”
In his time enforcing Title VI, Tatel faced egregious violations of civil rights laws by school districts and universities, involving refusals to comply with court desegregation orders, and the firing of Black teachers.
Tatel recalls traveling to remote school districts in Texas and Arkansas, meeting with school superintendents to learn about their issues and work out agreements. He did the same with the city of Chicago, taking months to investigate concerns and negotiate over how to achieve voluntary compliance with a desegregation plan that would serve the interests of students, the city, and the federal government.
Universities were no different. Tatel carefully negotiated agreements with the public university systems of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Virginia to remove the vestiges of racially dual education systems in those five states.
The University of North Carolina took longer, but Tatel and his boss, HEW Secretary Joseph Califano, stayed with it for years, meeting repeatedly with the UNC president and North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt to craft an acceptable plan. Ultimately an agreement was worked out by the Reagan administration.
The approach to Title VI enforcement Judge Tatel followed and that is mandated by the statute has worked time and again. As a result, the termination of funds has been rare. Thousands of Title VI complaints have been filed during the decades Tatel and the signatories to the brief oversaw enforcement. They are aware of none that has resulted in fund termination since 1982.
Contrast this with way Trump has pursued alleged Title VI concerns with Harvard. After receiving notification of the government’s allegations of antisemitism on campus in February, Harvard explained the reforms it had undertaken and said it was open to exploring further reforms. Trump responded with an unprecedented and unconstitutional demand, requiring Harvard to submit to government control of the viewpoints expressed on campus. When Harvard refused to cede control of its teaching, community and governance, Trump moved within hours to terminate all federal funding.
The consequences to Harvard are dire. The cuts affect billions of dollars in funding that support medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and national security. Harvard filed suit in court, challenging the fund termination as unconstitutional retaliation for exercising its First Amendment rights and its right to defend itself.
Trump responded by doubling down, ordering the Department of Homeland Security to revoke Harvard’s certification to host the 7,000 international students currently enrolled at Harvard. Harvard filed a second suit to protect these students, and Trump retaliated yet again, issuing a new Executive Order directing the State Department to take actions designed to prevent new international students coming to Harvard from entering the country.
Nothing could be further from the process mandated by Title VI for resolving allegations of discrimination, or the process successfully followed by past administrations and those charged with enforcing Title VI. Rather than conducting a proper investigation with detailed findings, engaging in good-faith negotiations, and allowing Harvard an opportunity to defend itself, Trump moved immediately to the nuclear option that hurts everyone.
What explains this blatantly lawless conduct? In my view the answer is clear.
Trump is not interested in resolving allegations of discrimination, any more than he is interested in determining if the allegations have merit in the first instance. His motives are retaliatory and punitive. They are designed to assert control over America’s oldest, wealthiest, and most prestigious university—a powerful institution he has concluded is not aligned with his political ideology.
He is determined to make an example of Harvard so that other universities and institutions with money and power will do his bidding.
We are now well down a path toward authoritarianism. The importance of the battle between Trump and Harvard cannot be overstated. It will determine more than the future of academic freedom in America. It may well determine the future of our democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP Vote to Take Back Funds for NPR/PBS Imperils 'Future of Public Broadcasting'
"President Trump is determined to destroy any news outlets that hold him accountable for his actions," said one free press advocate.
Jun 13, 2025
The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday narrowly approved a rescission package that would take back funding for PBS and NPR, as well international aid programs—a move that supporters of public media quickly decried.
Earlier in June, the Trump White House formally asked Congress to rescind over $9 billion in approved spending, the vast majority of which would go toward foreign aid programs. However, it also includes a take back of more than $1 billion in already approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the congressionally funded and created company that supports public media in the United States. CPB distributes nearly all of those funds to local television and radio stations, according to NPR. The funding clawback impacts funding for the next two fiscal years.
"Public media delivers unmatched value to the American taxpayer," said Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of CPB, in a statement on Thursday. "It serves every family in every part of America."
The package passed with a 214 to 212 vote. All House Republicans except for four voted in favor of the measure, and all Democrats voted against it. It now heads to the Senate.
"From life-saving emergency alerts to local reporting and storytelling, and educational resources that support families, job seekers and teachers—these services exist because public media is committed to serving everyone, regardless of income or zip code. In many rural and underserved areas, the loss could be total," Protect My Public Media, a grassroots advocacy campaign focused on preserving federal funding for public media stations, wrote in response to the House vote. The group is driving emails to the Senate to urge lawmakers to vote against the package.
Co-CEO of the advocacy group Free Press Action, Craig Aaron, said Thursday that there is broad support for federal funding for public broadcasting.
"President [Donald] Trump is determined to destroy any news outlets that hold him accountable for his actions. As they prepare to vote on his request, senators need to know that supporting public media is healthy for their communities and our democracy. Publicly funded news outlets act as counterbalances to a commercial media system that too often puts profits before the public interest," Aaron said.
Big picture, Free Press Action says that the House vote puts the "future of public broadcasting in doubt."
In addition to slashing federal funding for NPR and PBS, the package would cut money for peacekeeping efforts, dollars for health programs that fund activities related to child and maternal health, HIV/AIDS, and infectious diseases, and funding for climate projects.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, highlighted some of these other cuts, as well as those to public media, and added that "Republican senators should reflect on how the rescission package threatens to blow up the annual appropriations process."
"The minority party has no reason to agree to bipartisan appropriations legislation if the president and one party alone can undo the deal," she said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Concerning, Shortsighted, and Detrimental': Trump Attacks National Endowment for the Arts
"Creative expression is the lifeblood that vivifies a free and democratic culture," said the head of one nonprofit publisher. "Every story a writer tells is one Trump cannot control."
May 06, 2025
Arts institutions around the country expressed sadness and outrage after the Trump administration notified theaters, literary arts organizations, and other groups on Friday that their National Endowment for the Arts grants were being withdrawn or canceled. The message came the same day that U.S. President Donald Trump proposed eliminating funding for the independent federal agency.
"Any attempt to dismantle the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)—by eliminating funding, reducing staff, or canceling grants—is deeply concerning, shortsighted, and detrimental to our nation," said CEO of Americans for the Arts, Erin Harkey, on Saturday. "NEA grants have touched every American, supporting projects in every congressional district and helping the arts reach parts of the country, including often overlooked rural communities."
According to NPR, which itself receives two NEA grants valued at $65,000, hundreds of groups across the country on Friday received a message from the NEA that grants offered for the 2025 fiscal year were being terminated or withdrawn. The email read, in part, "the NEA is updating its grantmaking policy priorities to focus funding on projects that reflect the nation's rich artistic heritage and creativity as prioritized by the president."
"Consequently," the email continued "we are terminating awards that fall outside these new priorities." According to NPR, the email states the president's priorities include projects that "celebrate the 250th anniversary of American independence," "make America healthy again," and "foster skilled trade jobs," among others.
Impacted organizations have submitted information about their terminated or withdrawn NEA grants to a public tracker, which as of Tuesday afternoon lists over 200 groups. According to the spreadsheet, total funding revoked as of 3:00 pm Eastern Time tallied $5.9 million.
According to reporting from The Washington Post, it was not immediately clear whether the NEA is able to rescind grants it has already awarded, something that grantees who spoke to the outlet raised. The NEA was established by Congress in 1965 is the largest funder of arts and arts education countrywide, also according to the Post.
The move to revoke funding "not only threatens the stability of countless community-based programs but also places a heavy burden on smaller arts organizations that rely on consistent support to serve, educate, and inspire," wrote Lina Lindberg, a grant strategist, on LinkedIn on Tuesday.
The nonprofit publisher Electric Literature announced on Monday that its 2025 NEA grant was terminated, but struck a defiant tone in the public statement.
"Creative expression is the lifeblood that vivifies a free and democratic culture. Trump is obsessed with a heritage and legacy of his own imagination. For him, literature is forward facing and therefore dangerous. Every story, even about the past, is a new story. Every story a writer tells is one Trump cannot control," wrote the organization's executive director, Halimah Marcus. "Electric Literature will continue to publish culturally enriching stories about the past, present, and future with honesty and heart."
Portland Playhouse posted on Instagram that the administration had withdrawn the nonprofit theater's $25,000 NEA grant on the eve of the opening night of a production the funding was meant to support.
"To receive this news on the eve of opening night is deeply disappointing. While we have no plans currently to cancel our production, moving forward without the support of this critical funding presents a significant challenge for our company," the playhouse wrote. "We know we're not alone. Arts organizations across the country are grappling with reduced support at a time when the need for community, connection, and cultural expression is vital."
According to n+1's development director Dani Oliver, the magazine on Friday learned about the termination of its $12,500 2025 NEA grant "meant to help us pay our authors, our editors, and to have the magazine distributed to our readers."
"We're trying to stay optimistic, but with the administration's other announcement this week that the NEA might be shut down in its entirety, it's hard to do so," Oliver added.
Earlier Friday, Trump proposed completely getting rid of the NEA in his budget blueprint for fiscal year 2026.
Next to where the NEA appears in the budget, the document explains that "the budget includes the elimination of, or the elimination of federal funding for, the following small agencies."
In addition to NEA, Trump's budget also proposed eliminating funding for the National Endowment for Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. The New York Times reported Friday that "the proposal to eliminate the endowments drew a quick and furious reaction from Democrats."
The Times also reported that on Monday a group of senior officials at the NEA announced their resignations.
One observer, Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine, connected the grant terminations to the effort by Republicans in Congress to pass a round of tax cuts that will primarily benefit the wealthy. "The next thing Trump is trying to tear down: the arts," he wrote on X Tuesday. "All to fund tax cuts for billionaires."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular