Attorneys general representing 16 US states have together filed an amicus brief in support of the Trump administration, which is being sued by Harvard University for confiscating some $2.26 billion of its federal contracts and research grants.

On Monday, the attorneys general of Iowa, Kansas, Georgia, Florida, and others said in their amicus brief that the Trump administration took appropriate action to quell what they described as Harvard University’s flagrant violation of civil rights laws concerning its handling of the campus antisemitism crisis as well as its past history of violating the Constitution’s equal protection clause by practicing racial preferences in admissions.

“Harvard both admits that it has a problem with antisemitism and acknowledges that problem as the reason it needs a multi-agency Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. Yet when the federal government acted to rectify that acknowledged violation of federal law through a negotiated practice, Harvard cried retaliation,” the brief says. “Its characterization of its refusal to follow federal nondiscrimination law as First Amendment speech is sheer chutzpah.”

It continued, “There is strong evidence of Harvard’s discriminatory animus, and the First Amendment does not shield it from consequences. This court should deny summary judgement and allow the federal government to proceed with enforcing the law. Perhaps if Harvard faces consequences for violating federal antidiscrimination law, it will finally stop violating federal antidiscrimination law.”

As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Harvard alleges that the Trump administration bypassed key procedural steps it must, by law, take before sequestering federal funds. It also said that the Trump administration does not aim, as it has publicly pledged, to combat campus antisemitism at Harvard but to impose “viewpoint-based conditions on Harvard’s funding.”

The Trump administration has proposed that Harvard reform in ways that conservatives have long argued will make higher education more meritocratic and less welcoming to anti-Zionists and far-left extremists. Its “demands,” contained in a letter the administration sent to interim Harvard president Alan Garber — who subsequently released it to the public — called for “viewpoint diversity in hiring and admissions,” the “discontinuation of [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives],” and “reducing forms of governance bloat.” They also implored Harvard to begin “reforming programs with egregious records of antisemitism” and to recalibrate its approach to “student discipline.”

Harvard has its own defenders, including those who are responsible for drawing scrutiny of antisemitism and far-left extremism there.

Earlier this month, the Palestine Solidarity Committee — which blamed Israel for Hamas’s Oct. 7., 2023, massacre mere hours after images and videos of the terrorist organization’s brutality spread online — filed an amicus brief which argued that the school’s alleged neglecting to restrict antisemitic demonstrations did not violate the civil rights of Jewish students.

“The expression of views critical of Israel — even where it personally offends — is not actionable harassment under Title VI [of the US Civil Rights Act],” wrote Palestine Legal attorney Radhika Sainath, who represents the group. “Defendants have not specifically alleged what actions they believe created a severe or pervasive hostile environment for Jewish students in violation of Title VI — or what educational programs or activities were limited or denied by such acts.”

Sainath continued, comparing Jewish Zionists to segregationists who defended white supremacy during Jim Crow, while comparing anti-Zionists — who have been trafficking racial slurs and epithets about African Americans on social media during the Gaza war — to the civil rights activists of the 1960s.

“Many white parents who supported segregation were discomforted — even frightened — by the prospect of Black children attending schools with their children. But advocacy for the rights of Black Americans to live as equal citizens was not anti-white any more than advocacy for the equal rights of Palestinians is anti-Jewish,” Sainath charged. “In fact, it is opposition to equal rights of Black people that is discriminatory, just as opposition to equal rights for Palestinians is discriminatory.”

The Palestine Solidarity Committee triggered a cascade of events in which Harvard was accused of fostering a culture of racial grievance and antisemitism and important donors suspended funding for various programs. Additionally, the school’s first Black president, Claudine Gay, resigned in disgrace after being outed as a serial plagiarist. Her tenure was the shortest in Harvard’s history.

More incidents followed over the next several months. In one notorious episode, a mob of anti-Zionists — including Ibrahim Bharmal, editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review — were filmed following, surrounding, and intimidating a Jewish student. A pro-Hamas faculty group also shared an antisemitic image depicting a left-hand tattooed with a Star of David, containing a dollar sign at its center, dangling a Black man and an Arab man from a noose.

Earlier this month, US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon hinted at the possibility of unfreezing billions of dollars the federal government put on ice, telling Bloomberg’s Akayla Gardener, “It would be my goal that if colleges and universities are abiding by the laws of the United States and doing what we’re expecting of them, they could expect to have taxpayer funded programs.”

Responding to an additional question Bloomberg posed regarding President Donald Trump’s saying recently that Harvard University —  which lost over $2.26 billion during the spree of cuts — “is starting to behave” — McMahon agreed with the president, suggesting that Harvard and the administration are drawing near a compromise. She added, however, that taxing Harvard’s $53.2 billion endowment, the value of which exceeds the gross domestic product of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and over 120 other nations, would benefit taxpayers. In April, Trump ordered the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to review Harvard’s tax-exempt status, a measure that was cheered by populists while being regarded as extreme by others who argue that following through on the revocation stands to make American higher education less competitive.

Trump addressed a potential “deal” with Harvard on Friday, writing on his Truth Social platform, saying a “deal will be announced over the next week or so.” He added, “They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right. If a settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be ‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC, and very good for our Country.”

To date, Harvard has held its own against the federal government, building a war chest with a massive bond sale and notching a recent legal victory in the form of an injunction granted by a federal job which halted the administration’s restrictions on its international students — a policy that is being contested in a separate lawsuit.

“The court’s order will continue to allow Harvard to host international students and scholars while this case moves forward,” a Harvard spokesperson told Newsweek on Tuesday. “Harvard will continue to defend its rights — and the rights of its students and scholars.”

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.

The post 16 States Support Trump Admin Over Harvard in New Amicus Brief as Part of Federal Funding Lawsuit first appeared on Algemeiner.com.