Judge reverses $2 billion Harvard funding freeze, says antisemitism was used as a 'smokescreen'
Harvard University was handed a win in court after a federal judge ruled that cuts from the Trump administration amounted to unconstitutional retaliation.
The ruling may be appealed, signaling the funding fight is far from over.
A federal judge has sided with Harvard University in its battle with the Trump administration, ruling that the federal government unlawfully cut off more than $2 billion in research grants in what the court called a politically motivated retaliation campaign.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled Wednesday that the administration’s move to freeze and terminate funding amounted to unconstitutional retaliation after Harvard refused to comply with sweeping governance demands from the White House.
In her 84-page opinion, Burroughs wrote that the administration “used antisemitism as a smokescreen” to justify stripping funds, when the real motivation was to pressure Harvard into adopting political reforms and eliminating its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
[RELATED: Civil rights concerns grow over Harvard’s support of race-based alumni group]
The dispute began after Harvard refused to adopt reforms demanded by a White House task force earlier this year. Those reforms included eliminating DEI offices, rewriting policies to enforce “viewpoint diversity,” and granting the federal government new oversight powers over university governance.
When the Ivy League school declined, the administration froze billions in active grants and floated stripping Harvard’s tax-exempt status, jeopardizing hundreds of federally funded projects and thousands of research jobs.
Burroughs ruled the cuts violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The decision revives Harvard’s sprawling research operation, which had been paralyzed by the funding freeze. University officials had warned the cuts would devastate labs and derail careers.
The ruling also sets a precedent that could shield other institutions from politically motivated grant cancellations. While the Trump administration argued it had authority to redirect funding priorities, the court ruled that freezing grants as punishment for refusing viewpoint-based conditions was unlawful.
Burroughs’ ruling may be appealed by the Trump administration.
[RELATED: Harvard, other universities co-sponsor event with convicted terrorist associate]
While the court framed the case as a defense of academic freedom, Harvard only acted after years of ignoring antisemitism and allowing ideological bias to fester on campus.
The decision now sets a precedent that could embolden other schools to resist federal oversight, leaving open the question of whether the Trump administration will double down in its effort to hold higher education accountable.
Negotiations between Harvard and the administration remain ongoing. President Donald Trump has insisted that Harvard should pay at least $500 million to settle related disputes, but no agreement has yet been reached.
