Lead: On Sept. 3, 2025, in Washington, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully froze federal research grants to Harvard University — blocking orders that would have terminated roughly $2 billion (later reported as more than $2.2 billion) in funding.
Key Takeaways
- Judge Allison Burroughs issued an 84-page decision finding the funding freeze violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the First Amendment and Title VI.
- The ruling blocks officials from implementing orders that would rescind or terminate federal research grants to Harvard.
- The court found weak links between the targeted grants and allegations of antisemitism on campus.
- The administration announced it had frozen more than $2.2 billion after Harvard rejected a list of demands in April.
- The Justice Department said it will appeal the decision.
- Burroughs previously blocked a separate effort to revoke Harvard’s ability to enroll international students; that ruling is also on appeal.
- The decision underscores judicial protection for academic freedom and established grant procedures.
Verified Facts
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs issued an 84-page opinion on Sept. 3, 2025, finding that Trump administration officials overstepped legal bounds when they froze federal grants and sent letters terminating awards from multiple agencies. The complaint and court record show Harvard challenged the freeze as part of a broader pressure campaign aimed at the university’s handling of antisemitism and other policies.
Burroughs acknowledged that Harvard has faced antisemitic incidents and should have done more to address them, but she determined the grant actions had little connection to the specific research projects targeted. The opinion states that the record indicates antisemitism was used as a pretext for a politically motivated effort against leading universities.
The administration originally notified Harvard in April with a set of demands. After Harvard did not accept those terms, officials announced a funding freeze affecting federal grants and contracts. Subsequent letters from nine federal agencies informed the university that certain research awards would be canceled or rescinded.
Following the decision, the Justice Department confirmed it would appeal. The White House assistant press secretary publicly criticized the ruling, characterizing the judge as biased and reiterating the administration’s position that Harvard failed to protect students from harassment.
Context & Impact
This ruling goes beyond the immediate parties by clarifying limits on the executive branch’s authority to withdraw federal research funding without following statutory procedures. The court relied on the Administrative Procedure Act and Title VI procedural safeguards in finding the administration’s actions procedurally defective.
For Harvard and its research partners, the order preserves ongoing projects, collaborations and the financial stability of federally supported work. The judge emphasized potential harm to the broader research community and to beneficiaries of the work targeted by the letters.
Politically, the case is part of a larger confrontation between the administration and several elite universities over campus speech, hiring and admissions. The decision may shape how future administrations raise concerns about campus safety and discrimination without invoking measures that impair academic freedom.
Official Statements
“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,”
Liz Huston, White House assistant press secretary
Unconfirmed
- Whether the administration’s ultimate goal was primarily ideological control of campus speech, beyond what the judge concluded from the record, remains a matter of interpretation and will be litigated on appeal.
- Any plan to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status has been threatened publicly but has not been finalized as of this ruling.
Bottom Line
The court’s ruling preserves Harvard’s current federal research funding while signaling limits on executive actions that bypass procedural and constitutional protections. The Justice Department’s appeal makes further litigation likely; the case will continue to test the balance between government oversight, campus safety concerns and constitutional safeguards for speech and academic independence.