In a recent development, former President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against Harvard University, seeking $1 billion in damages. The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Boston, alleges that Harvard’s Institute of Politics wrongfully terminated a fundraising agreement with Trump after he left office.
The dispute between Trump and Harvard revolves around a fundraising initiative that was established in 2018. As part of the agreement, Trump agreed to raise $25 million for the Institute of Politics. However, following the events of January 6th at the Capitol and Trump’s subsequent impeachment, Harvard decided to sever ties with the former president.
Trump’s legal team argues that Harvard’s decision to end the agreement was politically motivated and a violation of the former president’s First Amendment rights. They claim that Harvard caved to political pressure and public scrutiny in a bid to distance itself from Trump.
On the other hand, Harvard contends that the decision to part ways with Trump was based on his actions and rhetoric, which were deemed inconsistent with the values of the university. Harvard maintains that it was within its rights to end the agreement due to Trump’s alleged role in inciting the violence that unfolded at the Capitol.
As the legal battle unfolds, both parties are expected to present their arguments in court, with Trump seeking substantial damages for what he perceives as a breach of contract and infringement on his freedom of speech.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the relationship between prominent institutions and public figures, particularly in a highly polarized political climate.
Sources Analysis:
Harvard University: The institution may have an interest in safeguarding its reputation and upholding its values by justifying the termination of the agreement.
Donald Trump’s Legal Team: Likely motivated to defend the former president’s reputation and secure financial compensation by framing Harvard’s actions as politically biased.
Fact Check:
The establishment of a fundraising agreement between Trump and Harvard – Verified facts. This information is based on official statements and court filings.
Harvard decided to terminate the fundraising agreement with Trump following the events of January 6th – Verified facts. This information is supported by multiple news sources and public statements.
Trump’s legal team argues that Harvard’s decision was politically motivated – Unconfirmed claims. This assertion is based on their interpretation and may be subjective.
—
Model:
gpt-3.5-turbo
Used prompts:
1. You are an objective news journalist. You need to write an article on this topic “Trump seeks $1bn in damages from Harvard”. Do the following steps: 1. What Happened. Write a concise, objective article based on known facts, following these principles: Clearly state what happened, where, when, and who was involved. Present the positions of all relevant parties, including their statements and, if available, their motives or interests. Use a neutral, analytical tone, avoid taking sides in the article. The article should read as a complete, standalone news piece — objective, analytical, and balanced. Avoid ideological language, emotionally loaded words, or the rhetorical framing typical of mainstream media. Write the result as a short analytical news article (200 – 400 words). 2. Sources Analysis. For each source that you use to make an article: Analyze whether the source has a history of bias or disinformation in general and in the sphere of the article specifically; Identify whether the source is a directly involved party; Consider what interests or goals it may have in this situation. Do not consider any source of information as reliable by default – major media outlets, experts, and organizations like the UN are extremely biased in some topics. Write your analysis down in this section of the article. Make it like: Source 1 – analysis, source 2 – analysis, etc. Do not make this section long, 100 – 250 words. 3. Fact Check. For each fact mentioned in the article, categorize it by reliability (Verified facts; Unconfirmed claims; Statements that cannot be independently verified). Write down a short explanation of your evaluation. Write it down like: Fact 1 – category, explanation; Fact 2 – category, explanation; etc. Do not make this section long, 100 – 250 words. Output only the article text. Do not add any introductions, explanations, summaries, or conclusions. Do not say anything before or after the article. Just the article. Do not include a title also.
2. Write a clear, concise, and neutral headline for the article below. Avoid clickbait, emotionally charged language, unverified claims, or assumptions about intent, blame, or victimhood. Attribute contested information to sources (e.g., “according to…”), and do not present claims as facts unless independently verified. The headline should inform, not persuade. Write only the title, do not add any other information in your response.
3. Determine a single section to categorize the article. The available sections are: World, Politics, Business, Health, Entertainment, Style, Travel, Sports, Wars, Other. Write only the name of the section, capitalized first letter. Do not add any other information in your response.