A federal judge has delivered a significant blow to the Trump administration by ruling that its attempt to withhold $2.2 billion in research funding from Harvard University was unlawful, asserting that antisemitism concerns were used as a pretext for an ideologically driven attack.
In a landmark decision on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs sided with Harvard University, declaring that the Trump administration’s freeze on over $2 billion in federal research grants was unconstitutional and procedurally flawed. The ruling comes after months of legal battles stemming from the administration’s allegations that Harvard failed to adequately address antisemitism on campus.
Judge Burroughs, in her 84-page opinion, sharply criticized the administration, stating that it “used antisemitism as a smokescreen” for a targeted assault on the university’s academic freedom. She emphasized that while combating antisemitism is crucial, it cannot be achieved by violating First Amendment rights and federal statutes. The judge pointed out that there was no clear link between the affected research projects and the issue of antisemitism, undermining the government’s justification.
The funding freeze, initiated in April 2025, impacted a wide range of critical research initiatives at Harvard. These included projects aimed at developing predictive models for veteran suicide prevention, studies on Lou Gehrig’s disease, NASA’s radiation exposure measurements for astronauts, and programs addressing emerging biological threats. Burroughs noted that these cuts jeopardized decades of scientific advancement and public welfare.
Harvard President Alan Garber welcomed the ruling, describing it as a validation of the university’s defense of academic freedom and critical research. However, he acknowledged ongoing uncertainties, as the Trump administration has indicated plans to appeal the decision. White House spokesperson Liz Huston dismissed the ruling as biased, citing the judge’s appointment by former President Obama.
The case is part of a broader conflict between the Trump administration and elite universities over campus policies and federal funding. Other institutions, such as Columbia and Brown Universities, have reached settlements with the administration, agreeing to pay millions to restore funding. Harvard’s direct legal challenge sets it apart, highlighting the tensions between government oversight and institutional autonomy.
Looking ahead, the ruling temporarily restores Harvard’s access to federal funds and prohibits further retaliatory actions. However, the administration’s appeal could prolong the legal dispute, with potential implications for academic freedom and federal grant processes across higher education. The outcome may influence how universities navigate political pressures while upholding their educational missions.