A federal judge in Boston ordered the Trump administration on Wednesday to unfreeze nearly $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard.
“All freezes and terminations of funding to Harvard made pursuant to the Freeze Orders and Termination Letters on or after April 14, 2025 are vacated and set aside,” U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs said in the order.
The 84-page order conceded that Harvard has been "plagued by antisemitism" in recent years and should "have done a better job of dealing with the issue," but it said that "there is, in reality, little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism."
"In fact, 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, and did so in a way that runs afoul of the APA, the First Amendment and Title VI," Burroughs wrote.
The Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, gives federal courts oversight over all agency actions; Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin.
Harvard President Alan Garber said in a statement that the ruling affirms the university’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.”
He said the university will continue monitoring the case for “further legal developments.”
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Trump administration said it will appeal the “egregious decision.”
Harvard sued the Trump administration after it announced in April that it was freezing more than $2 billion in grants because the university refused to comply with the administration's demands, which included auditing viewpoints of the student body.
On April 11, the Trump administration sent Harvard 10 demands that included restricting the acceptance of international students who are “hostile to the American values and institutions,” having a third party audit programs and departments “that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture,” and shuttering all diversity, equity and inclusion programs and initiatives, including in hiring and admissions.
Burroughs said Trump administration lawyers “failed to meet their burden” in showing it acted in a non-retaliatory way.
She cited the April letter in which the Trump administration conditioned funding on agreeing to those 10 terms, “only one of which related to antisemitism,” she said. She said the six other terms were “related to ideological and pedagogical concerns, including who may lead and teach at Harvard, who may be admitted, and what may be taught.”
Burroughs said that while the defendants said the funding review was to combat antisemitism, the record found the Trump administration didn't engage in any review of antisemitism on campus or consider "if and how terminating certain grants would improve the situation for Jewish students at Harvard."
Harvard ultimately received grant termination letters from several federal agencies in early and mid-May.
“None of the Termination Letters identified any specific instance of antisemitism on Harvard’s campus, specified how Harvard failed to respond to any such acts of antisemitism in a way that violated Title VI, or reflected any effort to follow the Title VI procedural requirements that govern the termination of federal funding,” Burroughs said.
She also highlighted the impact the freeze and the terminations have on grant recipients and research.
“Work has been ordered to stop on a vast number of research projects across fields that are critical both nationally and worldwide,” she wrote. “There is no obvious link between the affected projects and antisemitism.”
Burroughs vacated the grant freeze orders and termination letters as they relate to Harvard “as violative of the First Amendment.”
She also blocked the administration from issuing any other terminations, fund freezes or stop work orders; otherwise withholding payment on existing grants or other federal funding; or refusing to award future grants, contracts or other federal funding to Harvard in retaliation for its exercising its First Amendment rights or on any purported grounds of discrimination without compliance with the terms of Title VI.
The White House appeared to defy the ruling, saying in a statement Wednesday: “Harvard does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars and remains ineligible for grants in the future.”
"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,” White House spokesperson Liz Huston said.
The Education Department rebuffed the ruling, calling it "unsurprising."
"The same Obama-appointed judge that ruled in favor of Harvard’s illegal race-based admissions practices — which was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court — just ruled against the Trump Administration’s efforts to hold Harvard accountable for rampant discrimination on campus," spokesperson Madi Biedermann said. "Cleaning up our nation’s universities will be a long road, but worth it."
Garber said the school's principles will guide its path forward.
"We will continue to champion open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas, and to build a community in which all can thrive,” he said. “I look forward to working with you in the months ahead as we join together, with renewed commitment, in the pursuit of excellence in teaching, learning, and research.”
