I appeared on The Lead with Jake Tapper to talk about the trial in Harvard’s suit against the Trump administration over $2 billion in funding cuts.
It’s the second time I’ve been on his show. I’m happy to get exposure to a new (for me) audience.
Transcript auto-generated, may contain transcription errors, lightly edited for transcript clarity)
Tapper:
Joining us to discuss is William Jacobson, a law professor at Cornell University and a Harvard Law School graduate. Professor Jacobson, the Trump administration, as you know, terminated $2.4 billion in federal funding for Harvard, impacting more than 950 ongoing research projects towards things such as cancer prevention, Parkinson’s research. Today the judge appeared to be favorable towards Harvard, and he [sic] questioned what the relationship between cutting funding for cancer research and ending antisemitism on campus was. Do you think Harvard has a legitimate argument here?
WAJ:
Well, they’ve got a legitimate argument. I just don’t know if it’s going to prevail. The Trump administration is arguing that in the fine print of the contracts, with the grants, that they have the right to terminate contracts when they no longer align with administration’s priorities. So the question’s going to be, do they have that legal right to do it? So yes, Harvard has arguments. They can say them with a straight face, but I don’t know if they’re ultimately gonna prevail. The Judge seems to be leaning that way from all the reports that I’ve seen, that she’s basically saying this is some sort of pretext, you’re not really doing that. You’re just punishing them, a violation of First Amendment sort of argument.
Tapper:
Do you think that Harvard sacrificed its independence by accepting the federal grants in the first place?
WAJ:
Well, they certainly did, and that’s what a lot of schools don’t seem to want to accept, that when you take federal money, it comes with strings attached. One of those strings is you have to comply with the civil rights laws, and if you don’t, you can lose your funding. But also there’s contracts that give you the grant and you have to comply with the terms of the contracts. And again, the Trump administration is claiming that the language in the contracts, that maybe the schools didn’t read that carefully, gives them the right to terminate it. So yes, you give up your independence when you take federal money. Everybody knows that, Harvard’s coming to grips with that,
Tapper:
Even if Harvard succeeds in this case. And that’s a big if, because obviously I’m sure it will be appealed, if Harvard does win this first round, could this sacrifice future federal funding, do you think?
WAJ:
Yes. That’s something that’s not really talked about enough, is that all of these fights are taking place over current funding money and contracts and grants that have already been given. And I think there’s a certain sympathetic aspect that certainly I feel for universities where you take money, you build up overhead, you build up infrastructure, and then the government wants to take it away.
But that’s very different from future funding. And I think the Harvards of the world, the Cornells and the Columbias and all the other places, they may win the battle over a particular grant, but there’s no judge that’s going to be able to order the Trump administration to give new funding. And these schools may find when the current funding runs out, even if they manage to keep it, that they’re not going to get more funding. And Trump has already announced, Trump administration’s already announced no new funding for these schools. So they’ve got weigh that risk against a possible short-term win in court.
Tapper:
President Trump’s attacking the federal judge on Truth Social saying, quote, the Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed judge. She’s a total disaster. Which I say, even before hearing her ruling, when she rules against us, we will immediately appeal and win unquote. Ultimately, this is going end up in front of the US Supreme Court, don’t you think?
WAJ:
It probably will, depends what the basis for the judge’s decision is. This is the same judge, and I don’t mean to disparage her, it’s just an interesting historical note, this is the same judge who ruled in favor of Harvard in the affirmative action case and eventually was reversed by the Supreme Court. So I think by all press accounts of people who’ve been in the courtroom, she seems to be leaning their way. But I think this is not necessarily a win for Harvard, and it might end up in the Supreme Court as to the terms and conditions under which an administration can pull funding.
Tapper:
Interesting. Professor William Jacobson at Cornell. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Always good having you.
WAJ:
Thank you.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY