A federal judge has delivered a sharp rebuke to President Donald Trump’s administration, overturning its decision to cut more than $2.6 billion in federal research funding to Harvard University.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled Wednesday, September 3, that the freeze on Harvard’s research grants amounted to unconstitutional retaliation after the Ivy League university refused to comply with White House demands on governance and policy.
In her 84-page order, Judge Burroughs concluded that the administration “used antisemitism as a smokescreen” to block the grants illegally. If the ruling stands, it promises to restore Harvard’s sprawling research programs and hundreds of projects left unfunded.
The decision marks a significant legal victory for Harvard in its high-profile battle with the Trump administration, which since returning to office in January 2025 has intensified its clashes with higher education institutions. President Trump, who defeated Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, has pursued aggressive oversight of universities, threatening their tax-exempt status and student visa policies.
During court hearings, Harvard attorneys argued the cuts could have shuttered labs, derailed careers, and crippled vital research. They contended the administration’s actions were a direct attempt to exert control over the “inner workings” of the university.
The administration’s lawyers countered that the President had authority to cancel grants inconsistent with his priorities, including his executive order to combat antisemitism. But Judge Burroughs rejected that rationale, explaining that constitutional protections of speech and academic freedom cannot be sacrificed for political agendas:
“We must fight against antisemitism, but we equally need to protect our rights, including our right to free speech, and neither goal should nor needs to be sacrificed on the altar of the other. … Now it is the job of the courts to similarly step up, to act to safeguard academic freedom and freedom of speech as required by the Constitution, and to ensure that important research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations…” she wrote.
If the ruling stands, Harvard’s vast research apparatus—and the hundreds of projects left in suspension—stand to be restored.
Settlement Talks Ongoing
Despite the ruling, negotiations continue between Harvard and the Trump administration.
President Trump has insisted that any settlement must include Harvard paying no less than $500 million. Unlike Columbia and Brown, which reached agreements with the administration, Harvard has so far resisted.
Wider Implications
The ruling reinforces judicial checks on presidential authority, particularly in the sensitive domain of higher education.
Legal scholars suggest the decision will stand as an important precedent against using federal funding as leverage to punish universities for resisting political directives.
For institutions nationwide, the judgment is both a reaffirmation of the First Amendment and a reminder of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding academic independence from executive overreach.
