On Sept. 3, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs overturned the Trump Administration’s attempt to freeze over $2 billion in research funding to Harvard University. This decision follows several months of legal proceedings that began in April, when Harvard filed a lawsuit challenging the Administration’s actions.
Earlier in the year, on April 11, the Department of Health and Human Services sent a letter to Harvard University President Dr. Alan Garber, outlining several complaints and requirements that were to be addressed by August 2025. These include strengthening university governance, eliminating DEI considerations in hiring and admissions, tightening international admissions, addressing potential antisemitism, enforcing discipline among students and staff, protecting whistleblowers, and providing regular updates to the federal government on policy and funding status.
The Trump Administration’s focus on Harvard and other Ivy League schools was ignited by a wave of student protests sweeping the nation. Beginning in October 2023, students united to voice their outrage over what they saw as U.S. complicity and financial support for the Israeli Government’s actions in Gaza. This activism deepened the divide between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli groups both on campus and beyond. In response, the administration urged Harvard’s leadership to take decisive action against any student or staff behavior that could incite anti-Semitic violence. These calls for reform were echoed in President Donald Trump’s “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism” address, delivered just days after his inauguration.
In response to the HHS letter, Garber took a bold public stand on behalf of Harvard, confronting Trump’s freeze on funding, threats to revoke the university’s tax-exempt status, and efforts to exert control over the institution. In the same statement, Garber announced Harvard’s lawsuit, firmly asserting that the president lacked the authority for such sweeping actions. Garber painted a vivid picture of the vital research that would be stalled by the funding freeze and did not shy away from addressing the pressing issue of antisemitism. The university president’s words resonated as a rallying cry for academic freedom and the pursuit of knowledge.
That brings us to the final decision made by the district judge. Burroughs ruled that the Trump Administration’s actions violated the First Amendment and that free speech applies to private institutions as well as public spaces. Burroughs also asserted that the president’s administration punished the university for not following Trump’s ideologies. Although there has been a growing issue of antisemitism on campus, Burroughs could not find a reason for the government to block research funding, ruling that antisemitism was used as a “smokescreen” to give the administration a reason to target institutions that allow negative speech towards the president and go against his ideologies.
The ruling marked a decisive victory for Harvard, securing the university’s rights to free speech and academic freedom. It reaffirmed longstanding precedent protecting institutions from government interference. Following the Sept. 3 decision, Garber affirmed this in a public statement, “The ruling affirms Harvard’s First Amendment and procedural rights, and validates our arguments in defense of the university’s academic freedom, critical scientific research, and the core principles of American higher education.”