Judge questions legality of Trump administration’s $2.5b Harvard fund freeze
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Harvard’s lawsuit alleges Mr Donald Trump’s move violates the First Amendment right to free speech.
PHOTO: AFP
Follow topic:
BOSTON, Massachusetts - A federal judge in Boston cast doubt on the legality of the Trump administration’s termination
In a hearing on July 21, US Judge Allison Burroughs raised questions about the constitutionality of the government’s decision to slash the funding and called some of their arguments in defence of the move “mind boggling”. She pushed back in particular on the administration’s claims that the funding cuts were justified by Harvard’s failure to tackle anti-Semitism.
“There are limits to what you can terminate, and why, and how,” Judge Burroughs said to Justice Department lawyer Michael Velchik during the hearing. “It seems to be your idea that you can terminate a contract even if the basis for termination is a constitutional violation.”
President Donald Trump has made Harvard the main target of his effort
The Trump administration announced earlier in 2025 that it was scrutinising billions in federal grants and contracts to Harvard. The government has also threatened Harvard’s tax-exempt status and tried to prevent international students from enrolling.
Mr Velchik said at the hearing that he attended Harvard and considered it to be the best place to get an education. But he repeatedly echoed Mr Trump’s argument that the school “exhibited a wanton disregard for anti-Semitism” during campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza.
“I am both Jewish and American so I hear what you are saying,” the judge said.
Both sides of the case have asked Judge Burroughs to issue final rulings in their favour without a trial, an action known as a summary judgment. The judge ended the hearing without ruling and said she had not yet made a decision on the release of the funds.
The hearing came about a month after Mr Trump said in a social media post that the administration was nearing a deal with Harvard.
“We are confident that Harvard will eventually come around and support the President’s vision, and through good-faith conversations and negotiations, a good deal is more than possible,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement on July 21.
In a social media post on Truth Social on July 21, Mr Trump referred to Judge Burroughs as an “Obama-appointed judge” and “an automatic ‘loss’” for the government’s case, and vowed to immediately appeal against any ruling that goes against the administration.
“Harvard has US$52 billion sitting in the bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-America,” Mr Trump said in a post. “Much of this money comes from the USA, all to the detriment of other schools, colleges and institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer.”
After the hearing, dozens of Harvard alumni and professors held a rally outside the courthouse in support of the university, chanting the school’s “Veritas” motto and slogans like “Stand up, fight back!”
Professor John Quackenbush, chair of the biostatistics department at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said the funding freeze threatens not only his own research related to cancer and other diseases, but the work of his post-doctoral researchers, who he said are now being recruited by foreign institutions.
“The drain on the future of American research is something none of us should stand for,” he said.
During the hearing, Judge Burroughs heard arguments by lawyers for the university and a group of professors, who argued that the funding freeze was unlawful and unconstitutional.
US lawyers claim the Trump administration properly froze funding because Harvard failed to curb anti-Semitism on campus, particularly after the Israel-Hamas war erupted in October 2023. They said Mr Trump rescinded grants because Harvard no longer complied with Mr Trump’s policy of combating anti-Semitism.
“Harvard should have read the fine print,” Mr Velchik said during the hearing, arguing that the government can terminate grants at any time if a university is not aligned with its priorities.
The school claims Mr Trump retaliated when it rejected government demands to control its governance, curriculum and the viewpoints of faculty and students.
“In some ways, you’re justifying the conduct on protecting Jews and upholding American values but on the other hand taking steps that are antithetical to those things,” Judge Burroughs said at the hearing.
Later, at the end of the hearing, the judge told Mr Velchik that she hoped nothing had been said that would appear to diminish anyone’s concerns about anti-Semitism.
“This is obviously a very fraught and emotional topic,” she said. BLOOMBERG
