BOSTON — A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the reversal of more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard University, finding the Trump administration’s actions amounted to unlawful retaliation after the university rejected White House demands for changes to its governance and policies.
U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that the government used allegations of antisemitism as a pretext to target Harvard and other elite universities for ideological reasons and that the funding freezes and cancellations violated the university’s First Amendment rights and federal law. The order reverses all federal funding freezes and cuts imposed since April 14 and bars similar future actions that would violate constitutional protections or statutory procedures.
Burroughs wrote that "a review of the administrative record makes it difficult to conclude anything other than that Defendants used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities." She agreed with Harvard’s contention that the government did not follow the process Congress set out under Title VI of the Higher Education Act before cutting federal money and that conditions imposed on grants infringed protected speech.
Harvard sued after rejecting an April 11 demand letter from a federal antisemitism task force that sought sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. The university’s lawsuit said the actions by the administration were retaliatory and unlawful. Harvard President Alan Garber said the university would fight antisemitism while resisting government intrusion into academic decision-making, arguing that no administration should dictate what private universities teach, whom they admit or hire, or which areas of study they pursue.
The administration moved quickly after the April exchanges. Officials initially froze about $2.2 billion in research grants the same day Harvard rebuffed the task force, Education Secretary Linda McMahon later declared Harvard ineligible for new grants, and multiple agencies began terminating frozen awards under contract clauses that allow cancellations when grants no longer align with government policies. The White House also sought other measures, including restrictions on hosting foreign students and threats to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
Harvard has attempted to self-fund portions of its research in response but warned it could not fully absorb the loss. The judge’s order, if it stands, could restore funding to a sprawling research operation and hundreds of projects that had lost federal support, though whether the university will actually receive the money remains unresolved.
The Trump administration denied that the actions constituted retaliation, saying grants were already under review before the April demand letter and that the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. In court filings, the administration asserted that it is the policy of the United States under the Trump administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs. President Donald Trump has publicly said he wants Harvard to pay at least $500 million as part of any resolution, but no settlement has been announced. The administration has reached agreements with Columbia and Brown universities in related disputes.
Burroughs has previously sided with Harvard in a separate lawsuit, blocking efforts by the administration to bar the university from hosting international students. The judge’s latest order returns the dispute to a legal terrain that could prompt appeals; the White House said it would appeal if the ruling favored Harvard.
Neither the White House nor Harvard immediately responded to requests for comment after the ruling. The litigation highlights tensions between federal officials and leading private universities over campus speech, institutional governance and the scope of federal funding conditions.