Judge rules Trump administration unlawfully cut Harvard’s $2.2 billion research grants

BOSTON: A federal judge has handed Harvard University a major legal victory, ruling that US President Donald Trump’s administration unlawfully stripped the Ivy League school of about $2.2 billion in federal research grants.

US District Judge Allison Burroughs said on Wednesday that the administration used allegations of antisemitism as a “smokescreen” to pursue an ideologically driven campaign against Harvard. The court barred the government from cutting off existing grants, freezing payments, or blocking future awards to the university.

A clash over funding and ideology

The dispute began when the Trump administration cancelled hundreds of Harvard’s research grants, claiming the school failed to protect Jewish students from harassment on campus.

The decision came as part of a broader push to force universities to reshape governance, hiring, and academic programmes in line with what the administration described as a fight against “radical left” influence.

Harvard pushed back, filing a lawsuit that accused the White House of retaliation. The university argued the government had violated its free speech rights after it refused to meet demands for sweeping changes.

Judge Burroughs, appointed by President Barack Obama, agreed. She acknowledged Harvard had been slow to act against hateful behaviour but said the administration’s response was unconstitutional. “The government committed a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country’s premier universities,” she wrote.

Academic freedom at stake

Burroughs stressed that courts must protect academic freedom and ensure research is not undermined by political pressure. “Even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda no matter the cost,” she said, “it is the duty of the judiciary to act.”

The ruling prevents further grant cuts, blocks the freezing of funds, and forbids retaliation against Harvard through future funding decisions.

Harvard, White House respond

Harvard President Alan Garber welcomed the ruling, saying it confirmed the university’s stance. “This decision validates our defence of academic freedom, critical scientific research, and the core principles of American higher education,” he told students and staff.

The White House, however, signalled a fight ahead. Spokesperson Liz Huston branded the ruling the work of an “activist Obama-appointed judge” and vowed to appeal. “Harvard does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars,” she said, adding the school remained ineligible for grants.

Trump himself had previously said he wanted Harvard to pay at least $500 million to resolve disputes with the government, accusing the university of having “been very bad.”

Wider battle in academia

Harvard is not alone in facing the administration’s crackdown. Columbia University reached a $220 million deal in July to restore federal funds, while other Ivy League schools have also entered settlements.

Much of the dispute has been tied to pro-Palestinian protests on campuses after the October 7, 2023.

Harvard has admitted Jewish and Israeli students faced “vicious and reprehensible” treatment but insists it has taken steps to create a more inclusive environment. Still, the Trump administration’s actions extended beyond funding, threatening to strip Harvard of accreditation and even block international students, who make up about a quarter of its student body.

Burroughs had already intervened in a separate case to stop the administration from banning international enrolments.

Meanwhile, Harvard’s faculty chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which joined the lawsuit, urged university leaders not to strike deals with the government. “This decision makes clear that bargaining away the rights of the Harvard community is unacceptable,” its lawyers said.

The ruling is likely to set the stage for a prolonged legal battle, with the outcome shaping not only Harvard’s future but the relationship between American universities and political power in Washington.

Read next: Oil prices slip as OPEC+ weighs fresh output hike