Tue Jul 22 01:47:26 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary of the text and a rewritten version as a news article, designed to fit the style and perspective of “The Hindu,” an Indian newspaper.
**Summary:**
The Trump administration is facing legal challenges after slashing $2.5 billion in federal funding to Harvard University, citing the university’s alleged failure to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism, particularly related to protests against Israel’s war in Gaza. Harvard sued, claiming the administration’s actions are unconstitutional retaliation. A federal judge questioned the administration’s justification, prompting a furious response from President Trump on social media. The case has broader implications regarding academic freedom, university oversight, and the treatment of international students, with the administration also targeting Harvard’s accreditation and international student visas. The case is viewed by Harvard as an attempt to control academic decision making by withholding federal funding.
**News Article:**
**Harvard Battles Trump Administration Over Funding Cuts Amid Anti-Semitism Allegations**
*By The Hindu Bureau*
**New York, July 22, 2025:** A legal battle is brewing in the United States as Harvard University challenges the Trump administration’s decision to slash $2.5 billion in federal funding. The administration claims the move is justified due to Harvard’s failure to protect Jewish students from alleged anti-Semitism, particularly stemming from campus protests related to Israel’s war in Gaza.
The case, heard before Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston, has raised critical questions about academic freedom, government oversight of universities, and the rights of international students. Judge Burroughs, an Obama appointee, reportedly questioned the administration’s lawyer on the connection between the funding cuts and the stated goal of combating anti-Semitism.
President Trump, in a post on his Truth Social platform, preemptively criticized Judge Burroughs and vowed to appeal any unfavorable ruling, adding to the already heightened tensions surrounding the case.
Harvard has argued that the funding cuts are unconstitutional retaliation against the university for resisting government attempts to control its curriculum, staffing, and student recruitment. The university has been at the forefront of the President’s campaign against leading universities, which he accuses of harboring liberal biases and anti-Semitism.
The funding cuts have forced Harvard to implement a hiring freeze and pause ambitious research programs, particularly impacting public health and medical fields.
Beyond the immediate financial impact, the case has broader implications for international students. The administration has also targeted Harvard’s ability to host international students, a significant source of revenue for the university, by attempting to suspend the entry of new students and terminate existing visas.
The Indian perspective is particularly relevant here, given the significant number of Indian students who choose to study at Harvard. Any restrictions on international student visas could impact the aspirations of many Indian students seeking higher education in the US. Moreover, the debate around academic freedom and university autonomy resonates strongly in India’s own diverse and vibrant academic landscape.
The case is being closely watched by academics and civil rights advocates, with many viewing it as a test of the limits of executive power and the government’s ability to interfere in academic matters. It remains to be seen whether Judge Burroughs will grant either side’s request for summary judgment, but the outcome is likely to have far-reaching consequences for higher education in the United States and potentially beyond.
First Piper 