Trump Administration Challenges Ruling That Restored $2.7B in Federal Funding to Harvard

The Trump administration is appealing a federal judge’s order to restore $2.7 billion in frozen research funding to Harvard University, extending a contentious legal battle between the nation’s oldest university and the White House.

In September, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a scathing 84-page ruling that blocked the administration’s attempt to terminate the federal funding. Burroughs concluded that the administration had “used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities,” and found the funding freeze violated Harvard’s First Amendment and due process protections.

“We must fight against antisemitism, but we equally need to protect our rights, including our right to free speech, and neither goal should nor needs to be sacrificed on the altar of the other,” Burroughs wrote in her order.

The high-stakes appeal revives a court battle that has created significant financial and reputational challenges for Harvard. The case represents one of several conflicts between the Trump administration and elite academic institutions, which critics characterize as an attempt to exert political influence over American higher education.

Harvard initiated the legal battle in April when it sued the administration over the funding freeze, arguing it constituted an unconstitutional “pressure campaign” to influence and control prestigious academic institutions. Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman characterized the situation bluntly in a radio interview: “Ultimately, this is about Trump trying to impose his view of the world on everybody else.”

The Trump administration has countered these claims by accusing Harvard of “fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus.” Justice Department lawyers maintained the administration had “every right” to cancel the funding after the university allegedly failed to comply with its demands.

The case is part of a broader pattern of friction between the Trump administration and universities. In January, the administration launched civil rights investigations into dozens of prominent institutions. Harvard officials claim they have been targeted by at least six federal agency investigations this year, which they characterize as retaliatory actions.

In a particularly significant move, the administration also attempted to revoke Harvard’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which would have prevented the university from hosting international students. That action was temporarily blocked by a lower court.

A Harvard spokesperson expressed confidence in the university’s legal position, stating that the court’s September order reinstated “critical research funding that advances science and life-saving medical breakthroughs, strengthens national security, and enhances our nation’s competitiveness and economic priorities.”

The financial impact on Harvard has been substantial. In October, the university reported a $113 million budget deficit for the fiscal year—its first deficit since the COVID-19 pandemic. Harvard President Alan Garber attributed this shortfall to the uncertainty created by the ongoing legal battle.

“Even by the standards of our centuries-long history, fiscal year 2025 was extraordinarily challenging, with political and economic disruption affecting many sectors, including higher education,” Garber said in a statement.

Legal experts note that regardless of the court’s eventual ruling, the administration’s actions have already had significant effects. Aram Gavoor, an associate dean at George Washington University Law School and former Justice Department attorney, suggested the efforts have created “a chilling effect” for international students at Harvard. He observed that even if the administration loses on legal grounds, “there’s a point to be argued that it may have won as a function of policy.”

The White House has not responded to requests for comment on the appeal. The case now moves to the appeals court, with both sides preparing for the next phase in a dispute that has profound implications for academic freedom, federal research funding, and the relationship between government and higher education institutions.