Justice Department Appeals Judge’s Block on Harvard Funding Freeze

The Trump administration signaled on Dec. 19 that it would continue working to defund one of the world’s top universities over concerns about alleged anti-Semitism and ideological bias.

In a notice of appeal, the Justice Department said it was challenging a district court’s decision to block that freeze, which impacted more than $2 billion in funding for the school.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs entered a final judgment against the administration in October following a lengthy opinion a month earlier, accusing the administration of trying to impose an ideological orthodoxy on the university.

“The government-initiated onslaught against Harvard was much more about promoting a governmental orthodoxy in violation of the First Amendment than about anything else, including fighting antisemitism,” Burroughs wrote.

She added, “There is, in reality, little connection between the research affected by the grant terminations and antisemitism.” Reviewing the evidence, she said, indicated that the administration used anti-Semitism as a “smokescreen.”

A White House spokesperson quickly criticized the ruling and said Harvard had failed to protect its students from harassment.

In October, multiple universities rejected offers the Trump administration made tying preferred consideration for federal funding to certain practices by universities, such as neutrality on political issues and eliminating preferential treatment according to race.

The administration had already investigated Harvard over alleged anti-Semitism and responded earlier this year with several demands related to that issue and ideological bias. Burroughs suggested in September that the government’s funding freeze was retaliation over the university’s refusal to comply with those demands, which she described as intruding on academic freedom.

During a hearing in July, Justice Department Senior Counsel Michael Velchik said that the government would have canceled Harvard’s contracts regardless of how the university responded to its demands.

Among other things, the Justice Department has argued that the government was well within its rights to terminate funding streams to Harvard. The university, the department also said, brought the case in a federal district court when it should have brought it in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which typically handles contract-related disputes.

After Burroughs’ ruling, the Department of Health and Human Services said it was referring Harvard for proceedings related to alleged civil rights violations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Harvard violated that law through “deliberate indifference” to anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment on campus after the Hamas-led terrorist attack of Oct. 7, 2023, on Israel, the department alleged.

Both Burroughs and Harvard have pointed to efforts by the university to combat anti-Semitism and pushed back on the Trump administration’s approach to the issue.

“The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community,” Harvard President Alan Garber said earlier this year.

In April, Harvard released a lengthy report from its task force on combating anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli bias. Part of the report included results from a survey stating that “substantial numbers” of Jewish students reported feeling “physically unsafe” and “not at home at Harvard.”

The task force also hosted listening sessions, which reportedly found that Israeli students felt victimized by social shunning and that Jewish students hid their identities, among other issues.