A judge reversed Trump’s massive Harvard funding cut, calling it illegal retaliation.
In a landmark legal victory that could redefine the battle between the White House and academia, a federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore more than $2.6 billion in research funding to Harvard University. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs delivered a scathing rebuke to the administration, ruling the cuts were an act of “illegal retaliation” for Harvard’s refusal to bow to White House demands.
The ruling is a colossal win for Harvard, which accused the Trump administration of waging a political “onslaught” against the nation’s wealthiest university. According to court documents and reports from the Associated Press, the administration had frozen and then cut the funding after Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, rejected a series of demands from a federal antisemitism task force. These demands went far beyond addressing antisemitism, demanding sweeping changes to the university’s governance, admissions, and even the “intellectual conditions” on campus.
While the Trump administration has repeatedly argued the cuts were to combat antisemitism, the judge found little connection between the research grants and the issue. In a pointed statement, Judge Burroughs wrote that the government appeared to have used antisemitism as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.”
This isn’t the first time the court has sided with Harvard. Judge Burroughs previously blocked the administration’s efforts to prevent the school from hosting foreign students. The ruling also comes as the Trump administration has been in talks with Harvard officials about a potential settlement, with President Trump reportedly demanding “no less than $500 million” from the university to end the investigations and restore funding.
Despite the legal victory, the fight is far from over. The White House has already announced its intention to “immediately appeal this egregious decision,” signaling a prolonged legal war that could reach the Supreme Court. The ruling, however, stands to revive hundreds of research projects and send a powerful message that the courts will protect academic freedom from what they see as political overreach.
