Judge Allison Burroughs ruled in favour of Havard University, ordering the Trump Administration to reverse nearly $3 billion in federal funding. Image: The Daily.
(The Post News) – In a big court win for higher education, a federal judge directed the Trump administration to reinstate more than $2.6 billion in federal research funding to Harvard University. The judge said that the cuts in funding were politically motivated and undermined constitutional promises of academic freedom and free speech.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs determined that the administration illegitimately wielded accusations of antisemitism as a pretext to punish Harvard for refusing to comply with demands that it institute sweeping alterations in its governance, hiring, and diversity efforts. “The defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for an ideologically driven, targeted assault on this country’s best universities,” Burroughs wrote in her 84-page decision.
Judge Rejects Link Between Antisemitism and Research Cuts
The Trump administration claimed that it froze Harvard’s research money due to the university’s inability to keep campus antisemitism at bay. Judge Burroughs could not establish any evidence that the frozen research projects were connected with antisemitic activity.
Research on suicide prevention modeling for the Department of Veterans Affairs and Lou Gehrig’s disease was among the money frozen. NASA-funded astronaut radiation monitoring and research on emerging biological threats. “There is no overt link between the targeted projects and antisemitism,” Burroughs said. The judge again stated that while antisemitism remained an ongoing issue, the Trump administration had not probed into whether any Harvard labs or staff engaged in discriminatory behavior.
Judge Burroughs highlighted the freeze on funding that occurred following a string of denied demands by the Trump administration. These were university operations audits, abolishing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and the revocation of “merit-based” hiring and admissions policies. When Harvard refused to obey, the administration escalated its campaign, freezing research funding, threatening the revocation of the university’s privilege to host international students, and disputing its tax-exempt status.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently described the administration’s assault on Harvard as an orchestrated attack by federal agencies. “We just have a blast… Now we send them a patent letter and hit them again,” he told a Cabinet meeting.
White House and Harvard Reaction
In a blistering retort, White House spokesperson Liz Huston said the administration would appeal immediately. “To any objective observer, Harvard University failed to protect students from harassment and allowed discrimination to plague the campus for years,” Huston said. “Harvard has no constitutional entitlement to taxpayer funds and is still not qualified for future grants.”
Harvard President Alan Garber, however, hailed the ruling as a victory for constitutional rights and the scientific community. This decision preserves Harvard’s academic freedom, our commitment to thoughtful research, and the very bedrock of American higher education,” Garber wrote to the campus.
Harvard was the only university to file a court challenge to the freeze. Others, including Columbia and Brown, negotiated settlements with the federal government. Columbia paid $200 million and consented to federal oversight. Brown committed $50 million to Rhode Island workforce programs.
The Trump administration is also negotiating with UCLA to receive a $1 billion settlement. University officials have said that such a demand would substantially damage operations. Experts say Burroughs’ decision is a strong message to colleges across the country. “Courts must intervene to safeguard academic freedom and not allow significant research to be used as bargaining chips in ideological battles,” Burroughs said. “Even if it means risking the wrath of a government that is committed to its agenda no matter the cost.”
The Trump administration will appeal, but legal experts say that Harvard made a compelling case based on constitutional safeguards and procedural flaws in the actions of the administration. Although Harvard is adequately funded, loss of nearly $3 billion in federal research funds would have adversely affected students, educators, and essential scientific research.
For now, Harvard can pursue its projects, but the fight for federal research funds and political dominance over higher education is only just getting under way.
About the Author
