A federal judge just handed Harvard University a courtroom victory, striking down the Trump administration’s attempt to choke off its federal funding.
The Daily Caller reported that on Wednesday, Judge Allison D. Burroughs, an Obama appointee, ruled that the administration’s freeze on over $2 billion in Harvard’s federal funds was unconstitutional, arguing it trampled on the university’s free speech rights.
The Trump team had pulled the plug on the cash, accusing Harvard of failing to curb antisemitism and leaning too heavily into what they call illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) tactics. The judge, however, noted Harvard’s ongoing efforts to address these concerns.
The standoff between Harvard and the administration has been brewing for months, with tensions boiling over in April when the university vowed not to “surrender” to political pressure.
President Donald Trump didn’t mince words, calling Harvard a “joke” on April 16, 2025, and demanding it lose government research contracts. His administration followed through, freezing $2.2 billion in funding and signaling more penalties unless Harvard complied with their demands.
The Department of Homeland Security piled on, canceling $2.7 million in research grants and threatening Harvard’s ability to enroll international students. The administration insisted the university turn over records on visa-holders’ alleged “illegal and violent activities.” Harvard, standing firm, argued this was an assault on academic freedom.
Judge Burroughs’ ruling didn’t shy away from the antisemitism issue, acknowledging that Harvard was “wrong to tolerate hateful behavior for as long as it did.”
But she insisted the university’s free speech rights couldn’t be sacrificed, even in the fight against hate. Her balanced take exposes the administration’s overreach while nudging Harvard to keep cleaning house.
“Defendants and the President are right to combat antisemitism,” Burroughs wrote, “but we equally need to protect our rights, including our right to free speech.”
This quote sounds noble, but it sidesteps the real question: why did it take Harvard so long to act on campus hate? The administration’s heavy-handed tactics may have overstepped, but their frustration with Harvard’s sluggish response isn’t baseless.
Harvard’s strategy was clear: fight the administration in court rather than negotiate. The university’s public message in April doubled down on academic freedom, rejecting what it saw as political meddling. That gamble paid off with Burroughs’ ruling, but it leaves open whether Harvard can truly tackle its internal issues without external pressure.
White House assistant press secretary Liz Huston didn’t hold back, slamming Burroughs as an “activist Obama-appointed judge” who was always going to side with Harvard.
“Harvard does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars,” Huston declared. Her point stings—why should public funds flow to an institution that’s been slow to address discrimination?
Huston’s claim that Harvard “failed to protect their students from harassment” isn’t wrong, but her rhetoric ignores the legal nuance of Burroughs’ ruling.
The judge didn’t deny the problem; she argued the administration’s punishment was unconstitutional. It’s a classic case of the right fight being fought the wrong way.
Protests erupted in Harvard Square on April 17, 2025, with demonstrators rallying against Trump’s attacks on the university. Signs waved high, decrying what many saw as an assault on academic independence. But the optics of defending Harvard’s track record on antisemitism are shaky at best.
Burroughs’ ruling emphasized that Harvard is “currently, even if belatedly, taking steps” to combat antisemitism.
“Now it is the job of the courts to safeguard academic freedom,” she added. This feels like a pat on the back for Harvard’s half-hearted efforts, letting them off the hook too easily.
Harvard president Alan Garber celebrated the ruling but kept his tone measured, vowing to “continue to dedicate ourselves to expanding, disseminating, and applying knowledge.” Nice words, but they dodge accountability for the university’s past failures. Actions, not mission statements, will prove Harvard’s commitment.
The administration isn’t backing down, with Huston promising an immediate appeal to “hold Harvard accountable.”
Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Education, took a sharper jab, noting Burroughs’ history of ruling in Harvard’s favor on race-based admissions—a decision later overturned by the Supreme Court.
“The First Amendment is important,” Burroughs declared, “and the right to free speech must be zealously guarded.”
No one disputes free speech’s value, but using it as a shield for Harvard’s mismanagement feels like a stretch. The judge’s ruling protects the university’s autonomy but glosses over its moral fumbles.
