Boston Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Federal Funding Cuts to Harvard University
BOSTON — A federal judge in Boston on Wednesday delivered a significant legal victory to Harvard University by ordering the reversal of cuts exceeding $2.6 billion in federal research funding enacted under the Trump administration.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that these funding cuts constituted illegal retaliation against Harvard after the university refused to comply with White House demands for extensive changes to its governance and policies. The ruling effectively restores the billions of dollars that had been frozen and later cut from Harvard’s federally-backed research projects.
The Trump administration had previously linked these funding reductions to Harvard’s purported delays in addressing antisemitism on its campus. However, Judge Burroughs found that the university’s NIH and other federal research funding bore little connection to antisemitism, describing the government’s action as a “smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault” on premier American universities.
In her ruling, Burroughs wrote, “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.” This pointedly criticized the administration’s justification for the cuts, emphasizing a politically motivated agenda rather than bona fide concerns over campus conduct.
The flagship Ivy League institution has been engaged in a prominent confrontation with the Trump administration, which sought not only to cut funding but also attempted to impede Harvard from hosting foreign students and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. These moves sparked widespread attention and concern across higher education sectors nationally.
The restoration of federal funds promises to revive Harvard’s expansive research operations, spanning hundreds of vital projects that had suffered due to the financial constraints imposed by the cuts. Nonetheless, the actual disbursement of funds remains uncertain, as the government announced plans to immediately appeal Judge Burroughs’ decision. A White House spokesperson characterized the judge as an “activist Obama-appointed judge,” signaling ongoing resistance from the administration’s side.
Beyond the courtroom, Harvard officials and the Trump administration have been reportedly discussing potential settlements that could resolve investigations and eventually restore Harvard’s access to federal funding. President Donald Trump reportedly demanded a financial settlement of no less than $500 million from Harvard, a stipulation yet unmet, unlike similar agreements with Columbia and Brown Universities.
Harvard’s lawsuit accused the administration of orchestrating a retaliatory campaign after the university rejected a federal antisemitism task force’s demands sent in April 2025. The task force’s letter pressed for sweeping modifications relating to campus protests, academic programs, and admissions policies—all aimed at countering alleged liberal bias and antisemitic tolerance.
Harvard President Alan Garber expressed a firm commitment to combating antisemitism but emphasized the university’s autonomy, stating no government should dictate academic content, hiring, admissions, or research priorities.
This ruling reaffirms crucial protections for academic institutions against politically motivated cutoffs of federal funding and adds a pivotal chapter in the ongoing debates over federal oversight, academic freedom, and the politics of higher education in the United States.