On September 4, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee, ruled that the Trump administration's funding cuts to Harvard were unconstitutional.
Here's some of what Townhall reported at the time:
She wrote in her decision that “Harvard was wrong to tolerate hateful behavior for as long as it did,” yet found that the federal government had “used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.” She held that the government’s conduct violated the First Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act, and “jeopardized decades of research.”
Harvard is still wary of its future and now hostile political environment, with Harvard President Alan Garber saying "Our principles will guide us on the path forward.”
The Trump administration has vowed to appeal the ruling.
The funding cuts stemmed from concerns about antisemitism on campus at Harvard. At the time of the ruling, a White House spokesperson said, “To any fair-minded observer, it is clear that Harvard University failed to protect their students from harassment and allowed discrimination to plague their campus for years. We are confident we will ultimately prevail in our efforts to hold Harvard accountable."
To date, the Trump administration has not appealed the ruling, but talks for a settlement are ongoing.
After the ruling, funding was restored to Harvard, but that didn't stop 60 Minutes from running a story about how that federal funding jeopardized breast cancer research.
Harvard researcher Joan Brugge says her work has the potential to prevent breast cancer, but she was notified last spring that her federal funding was terminated. “It was just like a gut punch. My knees buckled, and I had to sit down,” she says. pic.twitter.com/WrIzR5rRPI
— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) November 10, 2025
"My research has the potential to prevent their daughters, and their wives, and their cousins from developing breast cancer. And I don't think any taxpayer would want to interfere with progress on a project like that," Brugge said.
"The ultimate goal is to find the treatment that will eliminate those cells that carry the mutations," Brugge told 60 Minutes.
"I just never imagined that research focused on a disease like cancer would be cancelled for a reason that was unrelated to the quality of the research or the progress of the research," she continued. "But this was across the board for issues relating to diversity and antisemitism at Harvard."
This is, of course, emotional manipulation. She even says, and emphasizes, that her work has the potential to prevent cancer. This is something most researchers could (and would) say, of course.
Notice how they never speak in any quantifiable terms. It's always "potential" or "on the verge of"... https://t.co/S3rzTOz537
— Amber Duke (@ambermarieduke) November 11, 2025
And another scientist, Jason Locasale, says Brugge's claims are over-exaggerated.
I am actually the lead and corresponding author on the most cited research paper of this person's career. Someone told me that today, and I verified it.
— Jason Locasale (@LocasaleLab) November 10, 2025
The claim that her work has had any substantial effect on breast cancer is a dramatic overstatement.
Like much of what’s… https://t.co/9AbQBuqBhl
"Like much of what’s being presented in this 60 Minutes segment," Locasale wrote, "it’s a PR narrative designed to grab money. It’s dishonesty from these institutions about what technology from the life sciences can actually do—and it says more about the way universities grift the public for sympathy and funding than anything about science itself."
Another X user took offense at Brugge's claims. "As a breast cancer survivor, I find her claims disgusting and exploitive," she wrote.
She’s been funded and researching this for nearly 50 years and we stopped her when she was only 5 minutes away from curing all of cancer…. https://t.co/mX7SBzRNic pic.twitter.com/nf5emd700h
— Wade Miller (@WadeMiller_USMC) November 11, 2025
What incredible timing.