Trump Admin's Harvard funding freeze: Judge calls DOJ rationale ‘mind boggling'

Mint

21-07-2025

A federal judge on Monday (July 21) raised serious concerns over the Trump administration's decision to withhold more than $2 billion in research funding from Harvard University, questioning whether the move violated constitutional protections.
'There are limits to what you can terminate, and why, and how,' said US District Judge Allison Burroughs during a hearing in Boston. 'It seems to be your idea that you can terminate a contract even if the basis for termination is a constitutional violation.'
Judge Burroughs stopped short of issuing a formal ruling but signaled skepticism toward the government's rationale for the funding freeze.
Lawyers for the Justice Department argued that Harvard failed to adequately address antisemitism on campus, especially following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war in October 2023. They said the university's inaction violated the Trump administration's policy aimed at combating antisemitism.
'Harvard should have read the fine print,' said DOJ attorney Michael Velchik, asserting the administration had the right to terminate grants when institutions fail to align with federal priorities.
The funding freeze is part of a broader push by President Donald Trump to reshape higher education. His administration targeted Harvard for what it called political bias, resistance to diversity program cuts, and alleged tolerance of antisemitism.
The government has also threatened Harvard's tax-exempt status and tried to stop international students from enrolling, according to court filings.
White House spokesperson Harrison Fields issued a statement on Monday: '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.'
Harvard and a group of professors filed suit in April, challenging the legality and constitutionality of the funding freeze. Their lawyers asked the judge to resolve the matter without a full trial, seeking a summary judgment.
They argue that the Trump administration retaliated against the university for refusing to cede control over academic governance and the free expression of students and faculty.
Burroughs, who disclosed during the hearing that she is Jewish, criticised the government's justification for the cuts.
'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,' she said.
Burroughs said she has not yet made a decision on whether to release the frozen funds. The case could set a precedent for the extent to which federal funding can be used as leverage against academic institutions.