A federal judge has dealt a significant setback to the Trump administration’s campaign against elite universities, ordering the reversal of more than $2.6 billion in federal funding cuts to Harvard University.
In an 84-page decision issued September 3, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs found that the administration’s actions violated both the First Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, concluding that the government’s stated justification—combating antisemitism—was a pretext for imposing ideological control over the university.
Newsweek reached out to Harvard and the Trump administration for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Thursday.
Why It Matters
The case tests the limits of presidential power over universities that depend on federal research dollars. By ruling that the funding freeze was a disguised form of retaliation, Burroughs reinforced constitutional protections for academic freedom and free speech.
With billions in medical and scientific research at stake, the decision not only restores Harvard’s funding but also sets a precedent for how far Washington can go in leveraging taxpayer money to shape university governance and culture.
What To Know
The dispute began in April, when Harvard rejected conditions the administration had tied to continued funding. Demands included restructuring governance, abolishing diversity programs, and admitting students to achieve “viewpoint diversity.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said: “More than $2 billion out the door to Harvard when they have a more than $50 billion endowment. Why are the American taxpayers subsidizing a university that has billions of dollars in the bank already? And we certainly should not be funding a place where such grave antisemitism exists.”
Harvard President Alan Garber responded in an April 14 letter that the university was “committed to fighting antisemitism and other forms of bigotry” but could not “accept the government’s terms” because “[n]either Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.” Within hours, officials froze $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts.
Retaliation Not Neutral Enforcement
Burroughs held that this sequence of events showed retaliation rather than neutral enforcement.
“In fact, 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 wrote.
Central to her opinion were President Donald Trump‘s own statements.
On social media, Trump had called Harvard “a Liberal mess,” suggested it “should no longer receive Federal Funds,” and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status.
On April 15, he posted on Truth Social: “Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’ Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!”
Days later, he added that “every time [Harvard] fight[s], they lose another $250 million,” and that the university was “getting their ass kicked.”
Safeguarding Academic Freedom
Burroughs cited these remarks to rebut the administration’s claim that its actions were limited to antisemitism concerns.
She wrote: “Harvard is currently, even if belatedly, taking steps it needs to take to combat antisemitism and seems willing to do even more if need be. 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, even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda no matter the cost.”
The Trump administration has defended its approach. In filings, government attorneys stated: “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.”
Harvard professor Rita Hamad said immediately after the court ruling, “Many of us are worried that the federal government is going to appeal this decision or find other ways to obstruct the delivery of research dollars, despite the judge’s clear statement that the funding terminations were illegal.”
What People Are Saying
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, in her ruling: “The idea that fighting antisemitism is Defendants’ true aim is belied by the fact that the majority of the demands they are making of Harvard to restore its research funding are directed, on their face, at Harvard’s governance, staffing and hiring practices, and admissions policies—all of which have little to do with antisemitism and everything to do with Defendants’ power and political views.”
White House spokesperson Liz Huston said the administration would appeal: “Just as President Trump correctly predicted on the day of the hearing, this activist Obama-appointed judge was always going to rule in Harvard’s favor, regardless of the facts. To any fair-minded observer, it is clear that Harvard University failed to protect their students from harassment and allowed discrimination to plague their campus for years. Harvard does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars and remains ineligible for grants in the future.”
Harvard President Alan Garber said in a statement of April 14, 2025: “No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”
What Happens Next
The Trump administration is expected to appeal Burroughs’ ruling, leaving Harvard’s restored access to federal research funds uncertain as higher courts weigh in. While Columbia University and Brown University opted for costly settlements after similar funding freezes, Harvard chose litigation, making the case a key test of how far Washington can go in pressuring universities.
The outcome will determine not only the future of Harvard’s programs but also the broader balance between federal authority and academic independence.
The post Judge Uses Donald Trump’s Own Words Against Him appeared first on Newsweek.
