Harvard wins lawsuit against Trump, restoring nearly $3bn in funding

A federal judge on Wednesday ruled in favour of Harvard University in its lawsuit against the US Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services, saying that the suspension of nearly $3bn in federal funding for the institution has nothing to do with allegations of antisemitism by the government. 

In her 84-page ruling, judge Allison Burroughs said the Trump administration did not engage in a review or weigh the value of any grant to demonstrate that it  "would improve the situation for Jewish students at Harvard".

The government also had "not gathered any data regarding antisemitism at Harvard", Burroughs said. 

In June, a Trump administration probe accused Harvard University of violating Jewish and Israeli students’ civil rights.

Officials from the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism wrote in a letter that there “has been in some cases deliberately indifferent, and in others has been a willful participant in anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students, faculty, and staff”. 

It also said that the “failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government”.

Harvard’s pro-Palestine student encampment last year, one of the five in the Boston area, “instilled fear in, and disrupted the studies of, Jewish and Israeli students", the task force said.

This is despite several Jewish students participating in and holding Shabbat services at the encampment.

The targeting of the most prominent and elite university in the US follows government attacks on other Ivy League schools, most notably Columbia University, which saw significant student protests for Gaza in 2024.

Project 2025

The crackdown on pro-Palestine sentiment on campuses largely stems from the controversial Project 2025 - drawn up by the far-right Heritage Foundation think tank. The document is a policy blueprint designed for and adopted by the Trump administration, though they deny mirroring the plan.

"Antisemitism, like other types of discrimination or prejudice, is intolerable. And it is clear, even
based solely on Harvard’s own admissions, that Harvard has been plagued by antisemitism in
recent years and could (and should) have done a better job of dealing with the issue," Burroughs wrote in her ruling.

"That said, 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," she said. 

Hong Kong targets top talent after ban on foreign students at Harvard University

Read More »

The government's actions, she added, "have jeopardized decades of research and the welfare of all those who could stand to benefit from that research, as well as reflect a disregard for the rights protected by the Constitution and federal statutes". 

Harvard had sued the Trump administration with three things in mind: that the funding freeze was decided "in response to Harvard’s refusal to capitulate to Defendants’ content-and viewpoint-based demands" in violation of the First Amendment; that the grant terminations did not comply with Title VI - a US law that prohibits discrimination based on race, colour, or national origin in programmes that receive federal financial assistance; and that the government "acted arbitrarily and capriciously... as they failed to provide a reasoned explanation for how or why freezing and terminating funding would further the goal of ending antisemitism".  

Harvard has previously attempted to address accusations of antisemitism by adopting a controversial definition of antisemitism that includes Zionism as a protected class and by dismissing faculty leaders at the university's centre for Middle Eastern studies.

Harvard also suspended the student group, the Palestine Solidarity Committee, in April.

Harvard University president Alan Garber expressed relief in a statement following the judge's decision, but also urged caution.

"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," he wrote. 

He added, however, that the current political climate means Harvard must also be "mindful of the changing landscape in which we seek to fulfill our mission".