While other institutions of higher learning acquiesced to Trump administration demands, Harvard University stood defiant. In response to President Donald Trump's threats to defund billions of dollars in research funds, the school's response could be best summarized as "we'll see you in court."
The legal war between the Ivy League school and the Trump administration is likely far from over, but Harvard won a massive battle with a federal court decision on September 3, 2025. Noting that President Trump's accusations of ongoing antisemitism against the school were likely overstated, Judge Allison D. Burroughs agreed with Harvard's stance that the attempt to deny billions in grants was a violation of the school's First Amendment and due process rights.
With the U.S. Department of Justice's bottomless resources at his fingertips, President Trump's earlier promise to appeal any decision he lost in this fight means the matter is far from over. However, Harvard's victory may inspire other schools reluctant to hand over control of certain administrative decisions to the federal government.
Are You Aware of What They've Done With Previous Grants?
The research funding granted to prestigious schools often provides amazing returns. Few, if any, can match the volume and magnitude of Harvard Medical School's discoveries, innovations, and advances. Even a partial list is staggering:
- Anesthesia (1846)
- Insulin (1922)
- Heart valve surgery (1923)
- Corrective heart surgery for children (1938)
- Pap smear (1945)
- Artificial kidney and pediatric remission of acute leukemia (1947)
- Kidney transplant (1952)
- Oral contraceptives (1954)
- Implantable cardiac pacemaker (1960)
- Prenatal DNA sequencing (1978)
- Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (1979)
- Locating gene for Alzheimer's disease (1986)
- Triple-organ transplant (1995)
- Adult live-donor liver transplant (1998)
- Circadian clock research (2001)
- Importance of prenatal nutrition (2005)
- Hematopoietic stem cells (2014)
- COVID side effects (2020)
- SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (2021)
Harvard's research grant funding allows the Medical School to attract the best and brightest researchers, doctors, and surgeons in the world. President Trump's April 2025 decision to freeze more than $2 billion in earmarked research grants threatened to derail one of the most important medical science research facilities on the planet.
The Trump administration accused Harvard, along with several other prominent schools, of ignoring antisemitism and allowing it to flourish on their campuses. These allegations allowed the government to hold research grants and other federal funds hostage unless the schools handed over control of certain policies to federal oversight.
In addition to claims of antisemitism, which often consisted of not interfering with protests supporting Palestine, the Trump administration targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion policies at the schools. This was part of the fight against so-called "wokeness" on campus.
You're Not the Boss of Me
While acknowledging the evils of antisemitism, Judge Burroughs ruled that the federal government's rescission of billions in grant money in order to force Harvard into giving up control of administrative viewpoints was a violation of both due process and the First Amendment. She noted that Harvard was addressing antisemitic issues and seemed willing to do more if necessary, and that demanding a third-party audit of the school's approaches and ideologies was an overreach.
The Justice Department had urged Judge Burroughs to use a recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling on freezing National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds as a guideline. The judge said she considered the decision while making her ruling, but that the violations of Harvard's constitutional rights were clear-cut and impossible to overlook. What's more, clear Supreme Court precedent holds that withholding federal grants to violate an institution or entities' constitutional rights is not permissible.
Many of President Trump's executive orders and actions have been successfully challenged in federal court so far during this term, and it's likely he'll follow the familiar trajectory of filing an appeal. His success rate is much better in front of SCOTUS, but prevailing over the Crimson may prove a difficult task.
Related Resources
- University DEI Programs Under Review by the Trump Administration (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- DOJ Tells Legal Aid Organizations That Receive Certain Federal Funding To Stop Representing Immigrants (FindLaw's Courtside)
- Extortion (FindLaw's Criminal Charges)
