Lonie Knight
Staff Writer
The federal government is stepping up its use of lawsuits, funding freezes and regulatory pressure against U.S. universities. This shift has triggered a growing number of legal battles and left students and faculty questioning how far Washington’s influence over higher education may extend.
From elite private colleges to major public universities, schools such as Harvard, Cornell, and Texas A&M are increasingly clashing with federal and state officials over issues ranging from research funding and diversity programs to campus responses to allegations of antisemitism. Legal experts say these disputes reflect a broader effort to use financial leverage to influence university policies.
The Harvard Crimson states that for universities, the stakes are high. Federal dollars support everything from scientific research and medical studies to graduate student stipends and campus infrastructure. When that funding is delayed or cut off, administrators say the effects can ripple through an institution quickly.
That risk became clear when Harvard sued the Department of Health and Human Services and other agencies after hundreds of millions in research funding were frozen. The Harvard Crimson argued the government failed to cite specific violations and instead punished the university over political disagreements.
The Harvard case underscores the risks when funding decisions collide with political pressure. While federal agencies have broad authority to enforce civil rights and funding rules, critics say unclear standards can expose schools to penalties without due process. Supporters argue financial leverage is a legitimate way to hold institutions accountable, especially in cases involving discrimination or campus safety, as said by The Harvard Crimson.
A federal judge agreed in 2025, ruling that the funding freeze violated constitutional protections and appeared to be politically motivated. The government later appealed the decision, keeping the conflict alive and placing Harvard at the center of a national debate over federal oversight of higher education, according to court records summarized in Harvard v. Department of Health and Human Services.
The funding fight was not the only point of tension. Federal officials also pressed Harvard to overhaul internal compliance and disciplinary systems, citing concerns about antisemitism on campus. University leaders pushed back, saying the demands crossed from oversight into interference with academic governance, Harvard Magazine reported.
Other research universities are facing similar pressure. Cornell joined 11 institutions in a lawsuit against the Department of Defense over a proposed policy that would sharply limit reimbursements for indirect research costs, according to the Cornell Daily.
Cornell officials warned that sudden changes to reimbursement rules could force cuts to ongoing research and staffing, potentially weakening the country’s scientific output. The Cornell Sun reported in June 2025 that universities involved in the lawsuit said the proposed cap failed to reflect the true cost of conducting federally funded research.
Legal conflicts have also emerged around immigration enforcement and campus speech. Faculty organizations at Harvard, New York University and Rutgers sued after international students and scholars faced visa revocations and heightened scrutiny following pro-Palestinian protests, reported by Boston University Radio (WBUR) a local newspaper following this investigation. The lawsuit argues that the federal response chilled free expression and discouraged students from participating in campus life.
According to WBUR’s March 2025 reporting, faculty members said some students avoided classes and demonstrations out of fear of immigration consequences. University leaders warned the enforcement actions could damage their ability to attract international students and scholars, a cornerstone of many academic programs.
At the same time, pressure is not coming only from Washington. In Texas, a former chancellor by the name of Glenn Heggar, sued Texas A&M University, alleging he was wrongfully terminated after clashing with state leaders over academic governance. The Houston Chronicle reported in 2025 that the case reflects a broader effort by political leaders to exert greater control over university leadership and priorities.
According to Anderson, funding threats are often the government’s most effective tool because they can be deployed quickly through federal agencies, without waiting for Congress to act.
“Early on, what we saw was grant money being held back or denied that probably would have been approved otherwise,” he said.
As the lawsuits move through the courts, judges are being asked to decide where oversight ends and overreach begins. The answers could vary from case to case, Anderson said, especially as political leadership changes.
“You have a different president than you did two years ago, and suddenly the priorities shift,” he said. “There’s a lot of noise around these cases, but the consequences are very real.”
For students, those consequences are already starting to take shape. Cuts or delays in research funding could mean fewer opportunities for graduate students, slower progress on long-term projects and reduced access to labs. International students face uncertainty about visas, while debates over speech and protests continue to unfold on campuses.
University leaders warn that if the legal battles drag on, the effects could eventually reach tuition, financial aid and hiring decisions. For now, colleges and universities are preparing for a prolonged fight over how much control the government can exert — and what that means for the future of American higher education.
