By: Andrew Carlson

In a sweeping rebuke to the federal government, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled on Wednesday that the Trump administration acted unlawfully when it froze more than $2.6 billion in federal funding to Harvard University, citing allegations of antisemitism. The 84-page decision delivers both a significant legal victory for Harvard and a striking critique of how federal power was leveraged against elite universities during one of the most heated national debates over campus antisemitism in recent memory.

As The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) reported, Judge Burroughs accused the administration of using antisemitism not as a genuine basis for corrective action, but as a “smokescreen” to pursue a broader political agenda aimed at undermining America’s top-tier academic institutions.

“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,” Burroughs wrote in her opinion.

The decision will likely be appealed by the Trump administration, but for now it restores a measure of stability to Harvard, which has been caught in the crosshairs of intensifying disputes over antisemitism on campus, the role of higher education in political debates, and the government’s power to police civil rights protections in academia.

The case originated last year, when the Trump administration accused Harvard of failing to adequately protect its Jewish and Israeli students from harassment and antisemitic hostility in the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led massacre in Israel and the ensuing wave of anti-Israel protests across U.S. campuses. Federal investigators argued that Harvard’s response to alleged incidents of antisemitism — ranging from intimidation at demonstrations to discriminatory treatment in classrooms — violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

On that basis, the Department of Education announced it would freeze Harvard’s access to more than $2.6 billion in federal research and student aid funds. For a university that depends heavily on federal grants to support both cutting-edge research and student financial aid, the suspension was both symbolically potent and financially crippling.

According to the information provided in the JTA report, Harvard’s lawyers immediately challenged the decision, claiming that the administration was weaponizing legitimate concerns about antisemitism for political gain. The lawsuit alleged that while antisemitism must be addressed, the freeze amounted to “a blunt-force punishment” designed less to protect Jewish students than to weaken the nation’s most prestigious universities — institutions often perceived as bastions of liberal thought and frequent critics of Trump-era policies.

Judge Burroughs’ ruling validated much of Harvard’s argument. While she acknowledged the persistence of antisemitism in higher education — and urged Harvard to do more in addressing it — she concluded that the federal government had overstepped its authority by tying funding freezes to allegations in a way that lacked consistency or transparency.

“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, according to the JTA report.

She further observed that Harvard appeared to be “taking steps it needs to take to combat antisemitism and seems willing to do even more if need be,” suggesting that the administration’s punitive actions were premature and disproportionate.

The judge’s analysis also highlighted that other universities — such as Columbia and Brown — had reached multi-million dollar settlements under similar pressure campaigns, raising concerns about the fairness and consistency of the federal government’s approach. Burroughs implied that the pattern pointed less to a genuine civil rights enforcement program and more to a political strategy aimed at leveraging antisemitism claims for broader ideological battles.

The ruling arrives at a moment when universities across the United States are under scrutiny for how they handle antisemitism and anti-Zionism on campus. Since the Gaza war began in late 2023, incidents involving harassment of Jewish students have spiked, according to watchdog groups, while debates rage over whether criticism of Israel should be treated as protected speech or as discriminatory conduct.

As JTA has documented, Harvard has been a flashpoint in this controversy. Prominent faculty and student groups were criticized for issuing statements that many Jewish leaders said excused Hamas’s violence. Jewish and Israeli students reported feeling marginalized, unsafe, or even explicitly targeted. Harvard, like many peer institutions, faced protests from alumni, donors, and lawmakers demanding decisive action.

The Trump administration’s aggressive intervention — freezing billions in federal funds — marked the most dramatic assertion yet of federal power in this arena. While Jewish groups welcomed some aspects of the administration’s focus, critics warned that the approach blurred the line between protecting civil rights and punishing universities for political reasons.

Judge Burroughs’ ruling effectively validates those concerns. As the JTA report observed, her opinion signals that federal civil rights enforcement must be consistent, transparent, and genuinely tied to student protection, rather than to political warfare.

In the wake of the ruling, Harvard officials struck a cautious tone. While celebrating the restoration of federal funding, they emphasized their ongoing commitment to tackling antisemitism. A spokesperson for the university said the ruling “affirms Harvard’s right to both protect Jewish students and preserve the principles of academic freedom and free expression.”

Harvard has, in recent months, rolled out new initiatives to address antisemitism, including training programs, updated complaint procedures, and the establishment of a task force to examine Jewish student life. According to the JTA report, Judge Burroughs herself noted these measures approvingly, even as she stressed that Harvard “still has more to do.”

While the ruling is a setback for the Trump administration, the case is far from over. Federal officials are expected to appeal, arguing that the government must retain the power to use funding as leverage to ensure universities comply with civil rights law. At the same time, negotiations are reportedly underway between Harvard and federal officials to reach a broader settlement that could reinstate funding permanently and end ongoing investigations into the school’s conduct.

Such an agreement would follow the path of Columbia and Brown, both of which entered into settlements that included financial penalties and commitments to new antisemitism monitoring mechanisms. Yet as the JTA report emphasized, the Harvard case is distinct because of the unprecedented scale of the funding freeze and the explicit judicial critique of the administration’s motives.