Federal Judges Rule Against Trump Administration's Harvard Funding Cuts, Citing Illegal Retaliation
Federal judges blocked the Trump administration's $2.2 billion funding cuts to Harvard, ruling them unlawful retaliation for rejecting White House demands, ensuring critical research continues.
Overview
- Multiple federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration's decision to cut nearly $2.2 billion in federal research funding previously awarded to Harvard University.
- The administration's actions were deemed unlawful, with judges stating that the termination of grants was a pretext for other motives beyond stated reasons.
- U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs specifically ruled that the funding cuts constituted illegal retaliation for Harvard's rejection of White House demands.
- The court found that the administration's demands, including governance restructuring, were not directly related to addressing antisemitism, despite acknowledging the issue's importance.
- This judicial reversal effectively blocks the Trump administration's attempt to freeze funding, ensuring the continuation of critical research at Harvard University.
Report issue
Read both sides in 5 minutes each day
Analysis
Center-leaning sources cover the federal judge's ruling on Harvard's funding freeze by presenting a balanced account of the contentious decision. They highlight the judge's strong findings against the Trump administration's motives while also including the administration's forceful rebuttal and Harvard's acknowledged failings regarding antisemitism. The coverage focuses on reporting the legal outcome and the reactions from all parties involved.
"This ruling is huge. It is a big, decisive victory for academic freedom."
NPR"The decision is a significant win for Harvard, which has been targeted by the Trump administration in recent months."
CBS News"The decision is a major victory for Harvard, the only university to take the White House to court."
USA TODAY"The judge concluded that the Trump administration "used antisemitism as a smokescreen" to unlawfully block billions in research funding."
ABC News"The ruling reverses a series of funding freezes that later became outright cuts as the Trump administration escalated its fight with the nation’s wealthiest university."
Chicago Tribune"The judge also highlighted the impact the freeze and terminations have on grant recipients and research."
NBC News"The ruling reverses a series of funding freezes that later became outright cuts as the Trump administration escalated its fight with the nation’s wealthiest university."
Associated PressArticles (20)
Center (7)
FAQ
The federal judges ruled that the Trump administration's funding cuts to Harvard were unlawful retaliation for Harvard rejecting White House demands, constituting illegal retaliation beyond the stated reasons for the termination of grants.
The administration demanded governance restructuring and other changes not directly related to addressing antisemitism, which were part of the White House's attempts to exert control and were deemed pretextual by the courts.
Judge Burroughs' ruling effectively blocks the Trump administration's attempt to freeze $2.2 billion in federal funding, ensuring that critical research at Harvard University can continue uninterrupted.
The Trump administration, through a White House spokesperson, condemned the ruling, plans to immediately appeal, and expressed confidence in eventually prevailing to hold Harvard accountable.
Yes, Harvard has been quietly negotiating with the White House, reportedly agreeing to commit $500 million toward workforce development initiatives in exchange for restoration of the frozen $2.7 billion in grants and contracts, though the recent ruling strengthens Harvard's leverage.
History
- 13d13 articles