��֭����

Wielding the threat of crippling financial consequences like a mobster gripping a baseball bat, the Trump administration seeks to coerce Harvard into abandoning its First Amendment rights and its autonomy as a private institution.

On April 11, citing concerns regarding anti-Semitism and ideological imbalance, the government sent Harvard a letter detailing sweeping demands that, if Harvard complied, would allow Harvard to “maintain [its] financial relationship with the federal government.” Many of the demands sought to control what Harvard’s faculty and students think and say. They included (a) prohibiting the admission of international students who are “hostile” to “American values” or “supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism”; (b) mandating viewpoint diversity among students and faculty, and hiring faculty and admitting students on the basis of viewpoint to reach that goal; (c) reforming departments and programs that “reflect ideological capture” or “fuel antisemitic harassment”; (d) ending “all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs” and policies; and (e) ending recognition of proPalestinian student groups and disciplining student members of those groups. 

The federal government’s coercion of Harvard violates longstanding First Amendment principles and will destroy universities nationwide if left unchecked. It is long settled that the government cannot force private actors to punish protected expression. Nor may the government attempt to drive out disfavored ideas by dictating a university’s decisions about speech, discipline, instruction, and admissions. And while the federal government need not fund institutions like Harvard, once it opts to do so, it cannot condition funding on censorship of those disfavored views. Ignoring these legal and constitutional safeguards seems not to trouble Defendants. But it should greatly concern this Court and all Americans who care about free speech, academic freedom, and our nation’s future.

On June 9, 2025, FIREfiled an amicus brief asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.