In a stunning reversal of fortune, the courts have dealt the Trump administration an embarrassing rebuke.
On 3 September, US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs struck down the Trump administration’s freeze of over $2.2 billion in research funding for Harvard University, ruling that the funding freeze was retaliatory in nature stemming from Harvard’s refusal to comply with demands that would have altered its admissions and academic policies and diversity programs—a violation of the university’s First Amendment rights.
The Trump administration accused Harvard of failing to address antisemitic sentiment on campus but Judge Burroughs concluded that the Trump administration “used antisemitism as a smokescreen” to unlawfully block all the research funding that has been awarded over a span of years.
“Now it is the job of the courts to similarly step up,” Burroughs wrote, “to act to safeguard academic freedom and freedom of speech as required by the Constitution… even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda no matter the cost.”
While Harvard has obvious deficiencies in confronting antisemitism, the judge noted that the freeze was imposed before the administration even had a chance to review Harvard’s response to antisemitism allegations. Just days after Harvard unveiled a comprehensive antisemitism response plan in April 2025, the Trump administration imposed the funding freeze — without even reviewing the university’s corrective measures.
Judge Burroughs ruled that the sudden focus on antisemitism was at best “arbitrary and at worst pretextual,” adding that the administration “specifically conditioned funding on agreeing to its ten terms, only one of which is related to antisemitism.”
She noted that some of the administration’s demands are “related to ideological and pedagogical concerns, including who may lead and teach at Harvard, who may be admitted and what may be taught.”
In short, the Trump administration wanted to use federal funding as a tool of ideological coercion, effectively taking over Harvard and running it themselves.
Funding for Harvard’s critical projects and research is now going to proceed. These projects include research on tuberculosis, Lou Gehrig’s disease, NASA astronauts’ radiation exposure, suicide among US military veterans, cancer genomics, Alzheimer’s therapies, climate change, renewable energy, vaccine development, epidemic response, and many others that have national and global impact.
Judge Burrough’s ruling permanently bars the federal government from freezing, terminating, and reimposing funding freezes in retaliation for protected speech, and from withholding future grants without following proper legal procedures.
It also means that the government is legally barred from repeating the same actions on any other similarly situated institution under the same circumstances. Several universities like Columbia, Brown, Stanford, UCLA and about sixty others that have been investigated by the Trump administration can now cite the ruling as a defense or precedent, and challenge any federal overreach in court.
Harvard president Alan Gerber said at the time of the funding freeze: “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.”
The US District Court’s ruling safeguards academic freedom at one of America’s most respected institutions. And whether the decision stands or is overturned on appeal, Harvard’s refusal to capitulate offers a powerful reminder that principle must triumph over convenience, and that the path of resistance — though harder — is often the only one worth walking.