IN THIS ISSUE

EDUCATION & ADMISSIONS

Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration’s Funding Freeze of Harvard Unconstitutional

• Judge reverses Trump administration's cuts of billions of dollars to Harvard University
• Harvard secures win in fight with Trump over federal research funding

OVERVIEW

On September 3, 2025, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston ruled that the Trump administration’s freeze of over $2 billion in federal research funding to Harvard University was unconstitutional.

As reported in Issue 20, the administration justified its actions by claiming that Harvard had failed to adequately address antisemitism on campus, using that failure as the basis to withhold funding—linking research grant disbursements to the university’s policies and responses.

In an 84-page opinion, Judge Burroughs acknowledged that Harvard “could (and should) have done a better job of dealing with” antisemitism on campus. However, she concluded that the government had used antisemitism as “a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.” 

The court held that the freeze violated the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and constitutional limits on executive authority over Congressionally appropriated funds.

The ruling restores access to the funds, and bars the administration from employing similar justifications in future actions. The administration has stated it will appeal.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The ruling in President and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States underscores the constitutional and statutory limits on executive authority in higher education oversight.

First, the court reaffirmed that while the administration may scrutinize institutions for compliance with federal civil rights laws, it may not withhold Congressionally appropriated funds absent explicit statutory authorization. By conditioning Harvard’s access to research grants on its handling of campus antisemitism, the administration effectively sought to expand executive power beyond what the law allows.

Second, the court found that the funding freeze violated the First Amendment, concluding that the government’s actions constituted impermissible retaliation tied to campus speech and association. This marks one of the most direct applications of First Amendment protections in the context of federal research funding.

Third, the court held that the administration’s actions contravened the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to provide a rational basis for the freeze and by disregarding required procedures for altering or terminating grant awards.

Taken together, the decision narrows the administration’s ability to use executive orders or agency enforcement as indirect mechanisms to influence university governance. While the ruling currently applies only to Harvard, it sets a precedent that other institutions may invoke in parallel litigation challenging federal funding freezes tied to DEI or antisemitism-related claims.

BRIDGE POV

The Harvard ruling marks a significant check on the Trump administration’s attempts to condition federal funding on ideological grounds. While the court acknowledged that Harvard must improve its response to antisemitism, it drew a firm boundary around the limits of executive authority and the constitutional protections that prevent the government from using funding as leverage to penalize institutions.

Wednesday’s ruling is also a victory for higher education in its ongoing showdown with the federal government. As Harvard President Alan Garber noted, while the university remains committed to addressing antisemitism, no government “should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” 

The case underscores that the independence of universities and other institutions is not just a matter of governance, but a constitutional safeguard against political overreach.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Separate Compliance from Politics: Ensure that responses to discrimination or harassment—whether antisemitism, racism, or other bias—are grounded in existing legal frameworks (e.g., Title VI, Title VII) rather than reactive to political directives
    
2. Strengthen Governance and Transparency: Boards and executive teams should review oversight mechanisms for campus or workplace climate issues. Clear reporting lines, independent investigations, and public-facing accountability help reduce both legal exposure and reputational risk when facing government or stakeholder scrutiny.
    
3. Scenario-Plan for Funding and Enforcement Risks: Universities and companies with federal grants or contracts should develop contingency plans for politically motivated enforcement actions. This includes assessing financial dependencies on federal funding, preparing legal defense strategies, and proactively communicating values to employees, students, and stakeholders.

See also: Trump Administration continues targeted enforcement of Title VI and Title IX  (Issue 20) 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS & FEDERAL POLICY

Verizon–Frontier Merger Stalls as Federal Anti-DEI Mandates Collide with California Diversity Laws

• War over DEI threatens giant Verizon-Frontier merger as California battles Trump

OVERVIEW

Despite federal approval conditions, the $20Billion Verizon–Frontier merger is stalled in California due to a conflict between the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) over DEI policies. As reported in Issues 13 and 14, the FCC tied approval to Verizon’s commitments to dismantle DEI initiatives; the deal still requires state-level approval, including the CPUC, before closing.

California requires telecommunications providers and utilities to submit annual reports detailing the employment of women, minorities, disabled veterans, and LGBTQ+ individuals, along with their policies promoting equitable recruitment. The CPUC has indicated that Verizon’s shift away from DEI could place the merger in violation of these state requirements.

State approval remains pending while this compliance conflict is assessed, leaving the transaction’s timeline uncertain and highlighting the widening gap between federal anti-DEI conditions and California’s DEI mandates.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The Verizon–Frontier merger highlights the growing legal tension between federal executive orders limiting DEI and state laws mandating affirmative reporting and inclusion measures.

At the federal level, the FCC has conditioned approval on Verizon’s agreement to dismantle DEI initiatives, consistent with the administration executive orders prohibiting federal contractors and regulated entities from maintaining programs tied to race, gender, or other protected characteristics.

However, at the state level, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is obligated to enforce statutory requirements that include workforce composition reporting, supplier diversity initiatives, and annual plans to promote equitable recruitment. These requirements are grounded in California law and cannot be waived by regulatory discretion.

The legal conflict arises because compliance with one may trigger noncompliance with the other. This creates an unresolved question of federal preemption versus state authority. 

While federal law generally supersedes state law where conflicts exist, states retain broad powers to regulate companies operating within their borders—particularly public utilities. The courts have not yet addressed how the administration’s anti-DEI executive orders will be reconciled with state-level diversity mandates, leaving companies in regulatory limbo.

Until the conflict is adjudicated, the CPUC is unlikely to move forward, effectively stalling the $20 billion transaction. The case may become a leading test of how federal anti-DEI policies interact with state diversity mandates, with significant implications for multistate employers and regulated entities.

BRIDGE POV

The stalled Verizon–Frontier merger underscores the growing collision between federal anti-DEI directives and state-level diversity mandates. While the FCC sought to condition approval on dismantling DEI programs, California’s regulators are signaling that abandoning such commitments could violate state law. The result is regulatory gridlock—an illustration of how conflicting federal and state frameworks can directly disrupt major transactions.

This case highlights a broader trend: companies that operate across jurisdictions will face increasing compliance uncertainty as executive orders clash with state laws. The Verizon–Frontier impasse may become an early test case for how courts balance federal preemption with state authority in the context of DEI.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Map Federal–State Conflicts Early: For any merger, acquisition, or major expansion, evaluate not only federal requirements but also overlapping state-level mandates. Identifying points of conflict in advance can inform deal structuring, risk disclosures, and negotiation strategy.
    
2. Establish Dual Compliance Pathways: Develop internal frameworks that allow for compliance with both federal and state requirements, even when those frameworks diverge. This may involve parallel reporting systems, contingency planning, or governance mechanisms that can flex with changing enforcement priorities.
    
3. Anchor Deal Making in Institutional Values: Boards and executives should ground business and merger strategies in institutional autonomy and long-term values, ensuring that commitments to equity and inclusion are consistent, durable, and legally defensible.

See FCC Conditions Verizon–Frontier Merger on DEI Rollback” (Issue 13) and “State Officials Push Back on Federal Anti-DEI Conditions” (Issue 14).

FEDERAL FUNDING & OVERSIGHT

Latino Health Leaders Launch Independent Research Hub After HHS DEI Program Cut

• Health leaders launch new Latino-focused data hub to combat NIH budget cuts 

OVERVIEW

On August 30, 2025, a coalition of Latino health leaders announced the creation of an independent national research hub focused on health disparities, following the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) termination of its Office of Minority Health DEI grant program earlier this summer. 

The new center will be housed at a consortium of medical schools and community health organizations and is intended to fill gaps in research on chronic disease, maternal health, and mental health outcomes among Latino populations.

HHS had previously justified the program’s elimination by citing the administration’s executive orders restricting DEI initiatives in federally funded programs. The cuts halted more than $120 million in grants supporting community-based research and training. Latino health advocates argue that the termination threatens critical progress in addressing disproportionate health burdens, particularly in underserved rural and urban communities.

The independent hub aims to sustain this research outside the federal framework, with initial funding from philanthropy and private health systems. Leaders involved in the initiative emphasized that while the loss of federal resources poses challenges, the move reflects a broader push to preserve equity-focused research capacity in the face of federal rollbacks.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The creation of an independent research hub following HHS’s termination of its DEI program highlights the legal and regulatory impact of the administration’s executive orders restricting equity-focused initiatives in federally funded programs.

HHS justified eliminating the Office of Minority Health DEI grant program by citing compliance with Executive Order 14151 (Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing) and Executive Order 14173 (Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity). These orders require federal agencies to dismantle funding streams or activities explicitly tied to race, ethnicity, or gender identity.

While the administration framed the cuts as aligning with federal nondiscrimination law, the decision reflects a broader legal trend: the use of executive orders to withdraw Congressionally appropriated funds from long-standing equity programs without new legislation. As with prior cases, this raises questions about the scope of executive authority, the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and the constitutional limits on redirecting appropriated funds.

The launch of an independent hub underscores how external institutions may seek to sustain equity-focused research when federal programs are rolled back. However, without statutory or judicial reversal of these executive orders, federal funding for identity-focused public health initiatives will remain constrained.

BRIDGE POV

The termination of HHS’s DEI program under Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 is more than bureaucratic realignment — it is a direct blow to Latino communities. The discontinuation of federal support for the Hispanic Health Research Data Center, long a cornerstone for tracking disparities in chronic disease, maternal health, and access to care, is intentional and punitive in effect. It deepens inequities that already exist in healthcare and rolls back critical progress toward addressing systemic gaps.

Against this backdrop, the decision by Latino health leaders to establish an independent national hub is an act of urgent and courageous leadership. Rather than submit to political directives designed to dismantle equity infrastructure, they moved swiftly and decisively to safeguard protections, advance research, and preserve equitable access to care. 

Their response demonstrates that when government abandons its role, independent institutions can — and must — step in to ensure that rights, protections, and opportunities for vulnerable communities are not eroded by political mandates.

ACTIONABLE STRATEGIES

1. Invest in Independent Equity Infrastructure: Philanthropy, health systems, and private companies should commit resources to sustain research and data collection on health disparities. Where government withdraws, private-sector investment can preserve the evidence base needed to guide interventions and policy.
    
2. Partner with Community-Led Initiatives: Engage directly with Latino health organizations, academic institutions, and local providers building independent capacity. Partnerships amplify impact, ensure culturally competent approaches, and demonstrate visible commitment to equity beyond compliance.
    
3. Use Corporate Voice to Defend Autonomy and Access: Executives should make clear that equitable health access is not political—it is foundational to workforce strength, market stability, and long-term value creation. Publicly aligning business goals with health equity reinforces institutional autonomy and pressures policymakers by showing the private sector will not abdicate where the government has stepped back.