The Trump administration has formally appealed a federal judge's September 2025 ruling that declared unlawful the freeze on billions of dollars in research funding to Harvard University. The notice of appeal was filed late on Thursday, December 18, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, challenging U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs' decision that largely favored Harvard and a related suit by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).
The appeal advances the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston. Final judgment was entered on October 20, 2025, providing a 60-day window for appeal under federal rules; the filing came near the deadline.
White House spokesperson Liz Huston had signaled the intent to appeal shortly after the original ruling, stating: "We will immediately move to appeal this egregious decision, and we are confident we will ultimately prevail in our efforts to hold Harvard accountable."
In her September 3, 2025, ruling, Judge Burroughs concluded that the administration's freeze—initiated in spring 2025—violated Harvard's First Amendment rights by imposing unconstitutional conditions on federal funding. She described allegations of antisemitism on campus as a "smokescreen" for an "ideologically-motivated assault" on elite universities, noting the government failed to follow required procedures under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The freeze affected approximately $2.2 billion to $2.7 billion in multi-year grants and contracts, impacting over 900 research projects in fields like medicine, technology, and national security. Harvard sued in April 2025 after rejecting administration demands for oversight of governance, admissions, hiring, and DEI programs, arguing these infringed on academic freedom.
Following Burroughs' decision, most funding resumed, with Harvard receiving payments on reinstated awards. In late September, researchers accessed about $46 million covering roughly 200 projects—the first releases after months of disruption.
Harvard welcomed the original ruling, stating it reinstated "critical research funding that advances science and life-saving medical breakthroughs, strengthens national security, and enhances our nation’s competitiveness and economic priorities." AAUP President Todd Wolfson called the appeal a "continuation of their shameless campaign to halt critical research funding in an attempt to chill universities and faculty from engaging in any speech, teaching, and research that Donald Trump disfavors."
Legal experts view the administration's prospects as challenging at the First Circuit, given Burroughs' detailed opinion. Former HHS general counsel Samuel R. Bagenstos noted: "This is a really careful and well-reasoned opinion, and I don't think the Court of Appeals will be persuaded that she got it wrong."
If unsuccessful, the government could petition the Supreme Court, where its arguments on executive authority and civil rights enforcement might find sympathy among the conservative majority.
The initial notice does not detail arguments; full briefs will follow a court-set schedule. Meanwhile, reports indicate ongoing settlement discussions, potentially involving payments or concessions, though no agreement has been reached.
This case exemplifies the Trump administration's use of federal funding leverage to address perceived ideological issues at universities, targeting Harvard as a symbol of elite "woke" institutions. It raises broader questions about government influence over higher education, academic independence, and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.
Harvard has maintained confidence in its position, while the administration frames the appeal as necessary accountability for campus antisemitism concerns.
