Cambridge, MA – May 29: Law School alumni will raise their gives during Harvard’s 374th start on May 29, 2025.
Craig F. Walker | Boston Globe | Getty Images
A federal judge on Wednesday determined that the Trump administration’s $2.2 billion freezing Harvard University’s $2.2 billion grant over anti-Semitism concerns on campus and other issues was illegal, calling it a “targeted, ideologically motivated attack on the country’s finest universities.”
Judge Alison Burrows agreed with Harvard’s argument that the administration imposed a funding freeze in retaliation for Ivy League University’s refusal to result in reform demands that violate the First Amendment Protections under the Constitution.
Burrows’ ruling in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts prohibits freezing orders affecting Harvard and anyone in the Trump administration from enforcing those orders.
The White House said it would appeal the decision.
The Trump administration freezes grants to Harvard on April 14 and begins screening international students for ideological bias, including anti-Semitism, hours after the university completely refused to end its diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Burrows said the fact that the administration quickly terminated Harvard funding “what is being done before or accordingly on campus is what is going on, leads us to conclude that the sudden focus on anti-Semitism is at best… arbitrary, and worst, an excuse.
She also said in an April letter that “finances were made that were “particularly conditioned for agreeing to ten terms of office relating to anti-Semitism.”
The other six terms “relate to ideological and pedagogical concerns, including who leads and teaches at Harvard, which may be recognized,” she noted.
“A review of the administrative records made it difficult for the defendant to conclude anything other than using anti-Semitism as a smokescreen for targeted, ideologically motivated assault on the country’s finest universities, and did so in a way that caused a violation of the APA (Administrative Procedure Act), the First Amendment, and Title VI.
As a result of the freeze, work was ordered to be suspended “with a huge number of research projects in areas of importance both nationally and globally,” Burrows wrote.
Projects affected by the freeze include tuberculosis research, radiation exposure for NASA astronauts, Lugelig’s disease, and a predictive model for “veteran administrators” to determine whether a suicide veteran should be hospitalized.
“Based solely on Harvard’s own admission, it is clear that Harvard has been plagued by anti-Semitism in recent years and has been able to (and should have done) a better job of dealing with this issue,” Burroughts wrote.
“That being said, in reality there is little connection between grant terminations and research influenced by anti-Semitism,” she wrote.
In a statement to the university community regarding the ruling, Harvard President Alan Gerber said that “it affirms Harvard’s initial amendments and procedural rights and examines debates that advocate university academic freedom, critical scientific research, and core principles of higher education in America.”
“Even though we acknowledge the key principles identified in today’s ruling, we will continue to appreciate the meaning of our opinions, monitor further legal developments, and keep an eye on the changing landscapes that we are trying to fulfill our mission,” Gerber said.
At the time of the funding freeze, Harvard President Alan Gerber said in a memo to the university community that “even if the government is in power, it is not possible to determine what private universities can teach, who they can recognize and hire, or which areas of research and research can be pursued.”
“As President Trump correctly predicted on the day of the hearing, the activist Obama-appointed judge was always going to take control in Harvard’s favor, regardless of the facts,” White House spokeswoman Liz Houston said in a statement.
“To a fair observer, it’s clear that Harvard University has failed to protect students from harassment and has allowed discrimination that plagues campus for years,” Houston said. “Harvard does not have any constitutional rights to taxpayers and remains unqualified for future grants. We will soon move to appeal this terrible decision, and we are confident that in the end Harvard will win the effort to take responsibility.”
– CNBC’s Kevin Breuninger contributed to this story.
