Trump Unlawfully Canceled Harvard's Research Grants, Us Judge Rules

Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago

dsubburam

22 points

7 comments

reuters.comOtherstory

controversialmixed

Debate

60/100

Trump AdministrationResearch GrantsFree Speech

Key topics

Trump Administration

Research Grants

Free Speech

A US judge ruled that Trump unlawfully canceled Harvard's research grants, sparking debate about executive power and free speech, with commenters disagreeing on the implications of the decision.

Snapshot generated from the HN discussion

Discussion Activity

Light discussion

First comment

28m

Peak period

4-5h

Avg / period

1.2

Key moments

01Story posted
Sep 3, 2025 at 5:31 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01
02First comment
Sep 3, 2025 at 5:59 PM EDT
28m after posting
Step 02
03Peak activity
2 comments in 4-5h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03
04Latest activity
Sep 3, 2025 at 11:34 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04

Generating AI Summary...

Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns

Discussion (7 comments)

Showing 7 comments

SilverElfin

4 months ago

2 replies

This is absurd. Of course the executive can cancel grants from agencies that are directed by the executive. It is not an issue of speech, but whether the grant implements the goals the administration has. And in this case they don’t. Claiming that Harvard has to control who it hires for it to have free speech is inconsistent. Would the same judge agree then that federal contracts requiring ownership or quotas based on race and sex are also a violation of free speech? It’s also weird that the judge is guessing at the administration’s intent to make his case rather than on what the administration laid out (regarding discrimination against Jewish students and faculty).

jeffbee

4 months ago

1 reply

It's an 84-page discussion of why the plaintiff's activities were protected speech. Your dismissal of that as "absurd" would be more convincing if it enjoyed any supporting statements.

SilverElfin

4 months ago

1 reply

And those pages boil down to guessing at intent and claiming control over hiring is part of free speech. Your dismissal of my comment would be more convincing if it addressed what I actually said.

BugsJustFindMe

4 months ago

1 reply

> claiming control over hiring is part of free speech

The Supreme Court has upheld that freedom of association is a necessary part of the right to free speech. Do you not consider control over hiring to be freedom of association?

SilverElfin

4 months ago

1 reply

As mentioned in my earlier comment, the same political side and I bet the same judge, would support discriminatory requirements for the hiring practices of federal contractors. The question is whether the government can include things in its contracts to attain whatever political goals are desired, even if people have personal freedom of association. Whatever the answer, it has to be enforced equally in all circumstances. To me this judge is making a politically motivated ruling.

BugsJustFindMe

4 months ago

Instead of answering my very simple and straightforward question you instead do a "whatabout". Why is that? Do you not consider control over hiring to be covered by freedom of association?

BugsJustFindMe

4 months ago

> It is not an issue of speech, but whether the grant implements the goals the administration has.

Oh yes? And what goals are those, exactly?

> regarding discrimination against Jewish students and faculty

It's funny that you make this assertion, because, and this is a quote:

> Nowhere in the April 3 Letter did the government ... identify any specific instances of antisemitism on Harvard's campus, or ... specify how Harvard failed to respond to any such acts of antisemitism in a way that violated Title VI.

and then we can quote

> Once again, nowhere in the April 11 Letter did the government ... identify any specific instances of antisemitism on Harvard's campus, or... specify how Harvard failed to respond to any such acts of antisemitism in a way that violated Title VI.

and then we can quote

> The April 14 Freeze Order ... also did not identify any specific instances of antisemitism on Harvard's campus or specify how Harvard’s actions violated Title VI.

and then we can quote

> Once again, nowhere in the May 5 Freeze Order did the government ... identify any specific instances of antisemitism on Harvard's campus, or ... specify how Harvard failed to respond to any such acts of antisemitism in a way that violated Title VI.

and then we can quote

> There is no obvious link between the affected projects and antisemitism. By way of example (although by no means an exhaustive list), Defendants have ordered immunologists overseeing a multi-school tuberculosis consortium to immediately stop research, a researcher at the Wyss Institute to halt his development of an advanced chip designed to measure NASA astronauts' radiation exposure during the upcoming Artemis II mission to the moon, and another Wyss Institute scientist, a recipient of the nation’s highest honor for technological achievement, to cease his research into Lou Gehrig’s disease. Officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs have begun the process of cutting funding for research into, among other life-saving measures, "a predictive model to help V.A. emergency room physicians decide whether suicidal veterans should be hospitalized."

Surprising to say the least that these projects are not "goals the administration has".

View full discussion on Hacker News

ID: 45120623Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 7:55:16 PM

Want the full context?

Jump to the original sources

Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.

Open link View on HN