Harvard University is betting everything on the rule of law. Standing up to President Donald Trump and refusing to accede to unlawful conditions on federal funding is the right thing to do. It’s necessary to defend academic freedom and the future of all American universities as global leaders in the pursuit of truth.

But for the effort to succeed, it’s not enough for Harvard to be right. The legal battle that is just starting will be every bit as important as the strong stand that the university’s president, Alan Garber, laid out in an open letter on Monday.

The courts need to confirm that Trump can’t just cut off funds from universities he doesn’t like on his say-so. Then the Trump administration has to follow the law as laid down by the courts. Yet the path of the law is always full of pitfalls. That’s especially true at this moment, when the Trump administration has been coming dangerously close to open defiance of judicial orders, and the Supreme Court may be heading toward of a direct confrontation with the president.

So what happens next? The first step will be for Harvard — my own university, where I’ve been a professor since 2007 — to go to federal court and ask a judge to order the administration not to freeze $2.2 billion in federal grants to the university, as it announced it was doing on Monday.

Harvard can make several strong legal arguments against the Trump administration’s actions, as were foreshadowed in the letter to the administration sent by Harvard’s lawyers. The strongest, legally speaking, is that Trump cannot rely on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to cut the funding. The administration has seemed to be doing exactly that, accusing Harvard of tolerating anti-Semitism on campus and stating in its own letter to the University that federal funding “depends on Harvard upholding civil rights laws.”

Title VI says that, before the government can cut funding to a university for violating the anti-discrimination provision, there must be hearing before an independent decision-maker (such as a judge) that concludes the statute was actually violated. That hasn’t happened. To the extent the Trump administration is relying on Title VI, therefore, its freeze is illegal.

The administration won’t be able to convince a court that it can cut funds based on Title VI without following the statute’s required procedure. So it is all but certain to claim that in fact it isn’t relying on Title VI to freeze the funding, whatever it may have previously said. Instead, it will assert some vaguer and more general basis, such as that funding Harvard is not the administration’s priority.

There is a technical argument that Harvard could and should make against this kind of general assertion: that the freeze is arbitrary and capricious, hence in violation of the federal Administrative Procedure Act. Lawsuits challenging Trump administration cuts in grant funding by other agencies, such as the Department Health and Human Services, have made analogous arguments. They have some chance of success. In essence, the APA requires an executive agency to have defensible reasons for its actions. The legal question then becomes whether the Trump administration’s proffered reasons would count.

However, the most resonant, principled argument Harvard can make about the cuts — one it emphasized in its lawyers’ letter — is that the Trump freeze violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights. In essence, Harvard is saying, Trump is trying to condition federal funding on the university speaking the way he wants it to. That’s called an “unconstitutional condition.” The government can’t take away some benefit to which you are entitled on the condition you give up a constitutional right like free speech.

The Trump administration’s demand letter calls, among other things, for an independent auditor to review all Harvard departments to assure “viewpoint diversity.” Such an audit could require Harvard to hire faculty who say specific things the Trump administration wants to have said. That sure sounds like an unconstitutional condition.

Harvard can also deepen its First Amendment argument by saying that the Trump administration has targeted it for speech that took place on campus. That, too, violates the university’s free speech.

Finally, the university can argue that it has a free-association right to admit the students that it wants, consistent with the law — notably the Supreme Court’s decision in 2023’s Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard. The Trump administration’s letter tells Harvard to admit students based on viewpoint diversity, which could also count as First Amendment violation.

The federal courts will have to consider these claims. The issues are almost sure to reach the US Supreme Court, maybe more than once. All universities will be watching closely. The rest of the country should, too.

Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A professor of law at Harvard University, he is author, most recently, of “To Be a Jew Today: A New Guide to God, Israel, and the Jewish People.”

Related Articles

Raj Tawney: The Smithsonian is not a ‘distorter.’ It’s a mirror

Stephen Mihm: The atomic bomb set the stage for the college funding fight

Other voices: The integrity of the legal profession is at stake

Parmy Olson: Social media’s ‘big tobacco moment’ is coming

Thomas Friedman: Trapped in a woke right-wing ideology

For 178 years, the Smithsonian Institution and its 21 museums, 21 libraries, 14 education and resource centers, National Zoo, and other affiliates have been responsible for chronicling and displaying our nation’s existence to enlighten past, present and future generations.

The federally and privately funded organization has a responsibility to detail our country’s journey, from its beauty and majesty to its ugliness and struggles. But just as important as it is to show and tell the nation’s history, the Smithsonian’s displays have the power to unite, challenge, inspire, educate and evoke empathy.

Failure to fully convey the complexities of the nation’s experiences does a disservice to all Americans. The Trump administration disagrees.

The language in the president’s Smithsonian executive order, which calls for removing what it deems “improper ideology” from the institution’s museums and parks, is a deliberate effort to promote a whitewashed version of our complex history. Trump says the order is an attempt to “restore sanity and truth to American history” so that individuals aren’t “subjected to ideological indoctrination or divisive narratives that distort our shared history.”

The exhibits featured throughout all Smithsonian properties — carefully curated by experts and historians — offer artifacts, documents and artwork that present the American experience and teach us about the history of our Earth.

Does that sound like divisiveness, or is it “the increase and diffusion of knowledge,” which the Smithsonian states is its purpose?

Unsurprisingly, the White House cited The National Museum of African American History and Culture and the forthcoming American Women’s History Museum as examples of why the institution needs saving. The words “African American,” “culture” and “women” seem to be triggering to this administration. It’s been widely reported that across agencies, references to race, gender and sexual orientation have been removed from government websites.

Some subject matter, including conversations around racism, identity, sexism and classism seems to make many people, including politicians and individuals with corporate interests uncomfortable. Good. We can’t go back and change the darkest parts of US history, but we should strive not to repeat them. Leaning into that discomfort, which can serve as a reminder of what should not be happening, is a good place to start.

As a multiracial American — of Indian, Puerto Rican and Italian descent — family members from all three of my cultures were part of the American experience, but none were present on this continent 250 years ago when the nation began. Does that mean my story doesn’t qualify as a true American tale? Or is it simply not as important as the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant saga?

There are many Trump supporters who will be quick to brush off those questions and take offense to any allusion that the president is racist. This has nothing to do with race, they may say. It is simply about making America great again, they may add. But this is why learning our nation’s full history is important — because the country’s past is filled with examples of laws and policies that sanctioned the erasure of groups of people under the guise of making America “great.”

The US is its best self when it tries to right those wrongs. I am the result of historical governmental acts that have supported and welcomed outsiders to contribute to our land with the promise of American greatness. That promise was and continues to be realized despite some opinions. But progress comes with growing pains, and we can’t just erase parts of recorded history we disagree with.

I’ve spent most of my career path working for nonprofit organizations that support the exposure of art and history for various communities and groups not always represented in mainstream American culture. Firsthand, I’ve witnessed minds being opened, prejudices dissipated, and new conversations fostered. I’ve also seen setbacks when politicians, board members and powerful influencers impose their personal beliefs onto an organization and subsequently oppress voices in the process.

If the Trump administration’s executive order is determined to restore its parks and museums to narratives that “remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity, and human flourishing,” then the president must not erase our imperfections. That would turn US history into something almost similar to an unregulated Wikipedia page, where an unaccredited contributor — uninterested in accuracy — edits, deletes and revises the narrative.

Our flaws are just as crucial to ensuring that liberty and justice are truly provided for all as we evolve. But if the narrative is narrowed down to speak only for a portion of Americans, then we are removing the opportunity to challenge and question our progress.

Raj Tawney, an essayist and journalist who writes about family, food and culture, is the author of “Colorful Palate: A Flavorful Journey Through a Mixed American Experience” and “All Mixed Up.”

Related Articles

Stephen Mihm: The atomic bomb set the stage for the college funding fight

Other voices: The integrity of the legal profession is at stake

Parmy Olson: Social media’s ‘big tobacco moment’ is coming

Thomas Friedman: Trapped in a woke right-wing ideology

Robert Pearl: Will RFK Jr. fix America’s life expectancy crisis or worsen it?

Today is Friday, April 18, the 108th day of 2025. There are 257 days left in the year.

Today in history:

On April 18, 1906, the deadliest earthquake in U.S. history struck San Francisco, followed by raging fires across the city. More than 3,000 people are believed to have been killed by the quake, which was estimated to have reached as high as 8.3 magnitude on the Richter scale.

Also on this date:

In 1775, Paul Revere began his famous ride from Charlestown to Lexington, Massachusetts, warning colonists that British Regular troops were approaching.

Related Articles

Today in History: April 17, the Bay of Pigs Invasion

Fort Benning takes back its old name, but to honor a different soldier

The Oklahoma City bombing was 30 years ago. Some survivors worry America didn’t learn the lesson

Today in History: April 16, the Virginia Tech shooting

Today in History: April 15, the Titanic sinks in the North Atlantic

In 1942, in the first World War II attack on the Japanese mainland, 16 U.S. Army Air Force B-25 bombers conducted an air raid, led by Lt. Col. James Doolittle, over Tokyo and several other Japanese cities.

In 1955, physicist Albert Einstein died in Princeton, New Jersey, at age 76.

In 1978, the Senate approved the Panama Canal Treaty, providing for the complete turnover of control of the waterway to Panama on the last day of 1999.

In 1983, 63 people, including 17 Americans, were killed at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, by a suicide bomber driving a van laden with explosives.

In 2015, a ship carrying migrants from Africa sank in the Mediterranean off Libya. As many as 700 people are believed to have drowned.

In 2016, “Hamilton,” Lin-Manuel Miranda’s hip-hop stage biography of America’s first treasury secretary, won the Pulitzer Prize for drama.

In 2019, the final report from special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation was made public. It outlined Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election but “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

In 2023, Fox and Dominion Voting Systems reached a $787.5 million settlement in the voting machine company’s defamation lawsuit, averting a trial in a case that exposed how the top-rated network promoted falsehoods regarding the 2020 presidential election.

Today’s Birthdays:

Actor Hayley Mills is 79.
Actor James Woods is 78.
Actor Rick Moranis is 72.
Actor Eric Roberts is 69.
Journalist-author Susan Faludi is 66.
Actor Jane Leeves is 64.
Ventriloquist-comedian Jeff Dunham is 63.
Talk show host Conan O’Brien is 62.
Actor Eric McCormack is 62.
Actor Maria Bello is 58.
Football Hall of Famer Willie Roaf is 55.
Actor David Tennant is 54.
Filmmaker Eli Roth is 53.
Football Hall of Famer Derrick Brooks is 52.
Filmmaker Edgar Wright is 51.
Actor Melissa Joan Hart is 49.
Reality TV star Kourtney Kardashian is 46.
Former MLB All-Star Miguel Cabrera is 42.
Actor America Ferrera is 41.
Actor Vanessa Kirby is 37.
Actor Alia Shawkat is 36.