Trump administration unlawfully cut Harvard’s funding, US judge rules

Harvard litigated the grant funding case alongside the school’s faculty chapter of the American Association of University Professors. (AFP)
Short Url
Updated 04 September 2025
Follow

Trump administration unlawfully cut Harvard’s funding, US judge rules

  • US judge rules that Trump’s actions violated Harvard’s free-speech rights

BOSTON:  A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that US President Donald Trump’s administration unlawfully terminated about $2.2 billion in grants awarded to Harvard University and can no longer cut off research funding to the prestigious Ivy League school. The decision by US District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston marked a major legal victory for Harvard as it seeks to cut a deal that could bring an end to the White House’s multi-front conflict with the nation’s oldest and richest university.
The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based school became a central focus of the administration’s broad campaign to leverage federal funding to force change at US universities, which Trump says are gripped by antisemitic and “radical left” ideologies.
Among the earliest actions the administration took against Harvard was to cancel hundreds of grants awarded to university researchers on the grounds that the school failed to do enough to address harassment of Jewish students on its campus.
Harvard sued, arguing the Trump administration was retaliating against it in violation of its free-speech rights after it refused to meet officials’ demands that it cede control over who it hires and who it teaches.
Burroughs, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, said the Republican president was right to combat antisemitism and that Harvard was “wrong to tolerate hateful behavior as long as it did.”
But she said fighting antisemitism was not the administration’s true aim and that officials wanted to pressure Harvard to accede to its demands in violation of its free-speech rights under the US Constitution’s First Amendment.
Burroughs said it was the job of courts to safeguard academic freedom and “ensure that important research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations, even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda no matter the cost.”
She barred the administration from terminating or freezing any additional federal funding to Harvard and blocked it from continuing to withhold payment on existing grants or refusing to award new funding to the school in the future.
White House spokesperson Liz Huston in a statement called Burroughs an “activist Obama-appointed judge” and said Harvard “does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars and remains ineligible for grants in the future.”
“We will immediately move to appeal this egregious decision, and we are confident we will ultimately prevail in our efforts to hold Harvard accountable,” she said.
Harvard did not respond to requests for comment.
The decision came a week after Trump during an August 26 cabinet meeting renewed his call for Harvard to settle with the administration and pay “nothing less than $500 million,” saying the school had “been very bad.” Three other Ivy League schools have made deals with the administration, including Columbia University, which in July agreed to pay $220 million to restore federal research money that had been denied because of allegations the university allowed antisemitism to fester on campus.
As with Columbia, the Trump administration took actions against Harvard related to the pro-Palestinian protest movement that roiled its campus and other universities in the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s war in Gaza. Harvard has said it has taken steps to ensure its campus is welcoming to Jewish and Israeli students, who it acknowledges experienced “vicious and reprehensible” treatment following the onset of Israel’s war in Gaza. The administration’s decision to cancel grants was one of many actions it has taken against Harvard. It has also sought to bar international students from attending the school; threatened Harvard’s accreditation status; and opened the door to cutting off more funds by finding it violated federal civil rights law. Burroughs in a separate case has already barred the administration from halting Harvard’s ability to host international students, who comprise about a quarter of the school’s student body.
Harvard litigated the grant funding case alongside the school’s faculty chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which has voiced opposition to the idea of the institution cutting a deal with Trump.
“We hope this decision makes clear to Harvard’s administration that bargaining the Harvard community’s rights in a compromise with the government is unacceptable,” the group’s lawyers, Joseph Sellers and Corey Stoughton, said in a statement.

 


About 400 immigrant children were detained longer than the recommended limit, ICE admits

Updated 8 sec ago
Follow

About 400 immigrant children were detained longer than the recommended limit, ICE admits

  • A Dec. 1 report from ICE indicated that about 400 immigrant children were held in custody for more than the 20-day limit during the reporting period from August to September
  • Advocates documented injuries suffered by children and a lack of access to sufficient medical care

TEXAS, USA: Hundreds of immigrant children across the nation were detained for longer than the legal limit this summer, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has admitted in a court filing, alarming legal advocates who say the government is failing to safeguard children.
In a court filing Monday evening, attorneys for detainees highlighted the government’s own admissions to longer custody times for immigrant children, unsanitary conditions reported by families and monitors at federal facilities, and a renewed reliance on hotels for detention.
The reports were filed as part of an ongoing civil lawsuit launched in 1985 that led to the creation of the 1990s cornerstone policy known as the Flores Settlement Agreement, which limits the time children can spend in federal custody and requires them to be kept in safe and sanitary conditions. The Trump administration is attempting to end the agreement.
A Dec. 1 report from ICE indicated that about 400 immigrant children were held in custody for more than the 20-day limit during the reporting period from August to September. They also told the court the problem was widespread and not specific to a region or facility. The primary factors that prolonged their release were categorized into three groups: transportation delays, medical needs, and legal processing.
Legal advocates for the children contended those reasons do not prove lawful justifications for the delays in their release. They also cited examples that far exceeded the 20-day limit, including five children who were held for 168 days earlier this year.
ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
Hotel use for temporary detention is allowed by the federal court for up to 72 hours, but attorneys questioned the government’s data, which they believe did not fully explain why children were held longer than three days in hotel rooms.
Conditions at the detention facilities continued to be an ongoing concern since the family detention site in Dilley, Texas, reopened this year.
Advocates documented injuries suffered by children and a lack of access to sufficient medical care. One child bleeding from an eye injury wasn’t seen by medical staff for two days. Another child’s foot was broken when a member of the staff dropped a volleyball net pole, according to the court filing. “Medical staff told one family whose child got food poisoning to only return if the child vomited eight times,” the advocates wrote in their response.
“Children get diarrhea, heartburn, stomach aches, and they give them food that literally has worms in it,” one person with a family staying at the facility in Dilley wrote in a declaration submitted to the court.
Chief US District Judge Dolly Gee of the Central District of California is scheduled to have a hearing on the reports next week, where she could decide if the court needs to intervene.