A federal judge appeared sympathetic to Harvard University’s claim that the Trump administration illegally stripped the school of $2.6 billion in court Monday as President Trump slammed the Obama-appointed jurist as a “TOTAL DISASTER.”

Boston US District Judge Allison Burroughs heard oral arguments from lawyers for both Harvard and the Justice Department after the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university sued the Trump administration for slashing its flow of federal grants and other support.

Steven Lehotsky, arguing for Harvard, said the case is about the government trying to exert control over the “inner workings” of the university, and said the funding cuts could damage careers as well as lead to the loss of research and the shuttering of labs.

Michael Velchik, representing the administration, said canceling research grants was well within the federal government’s authority due to Harvard violating Trump’s orders to curb antisemitism.

However, Burroughs — who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama — questioned whether the government had the ability to make “ad hoc” decisions about withholding research dollars absent evidence the activity being funded was antisemitic in nature.

She also argued that the feds have provided “no documentation, no procedure” to determine whether Harvard officials have actually done enough to curtail Jew-hatred on campus.

“The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,” she said. “I don’t think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?”

Velchik fired back that he “rejected” the university’s accusation the government is anti-Harvard, instead insisting it is “pro-Jewish students” and “pro-Jewish faculty.”

The hearing concluded without a ruling being issued from the bench — though one is expected later in writing.

In a Truth Social post after the hearing concluded, Trump laced into Burroughs, labeling her a “TOTAL DISASTER” and claiming she had “systematically taken over the various Harvard cases, and is an automatic ‘loss’ for the people of our country!”

He also bashed Harvard as “anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,” asking how a “Trump-hating” judge was chosen to oversee the case and even predicting the outcome.

“When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN!”

If the judge decides in Harvard’s favor, the ruling would reverse the spate of funding freezes and cuts inflicted by the Trump administration after Harvard refused, in part, to implement reforms to combat antisemitism and address other concerns on campus.

“This case involves the Government’s efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking at Harvard,” the university said in its complaint.

“All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution’s ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions.”

Harvard’s lawsuit accused the White House of waging a retaliation campaign against the Ivy League school after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal antisemitism task force.

The letter demanded sweeping changes tied to campus protests, academics and admissions — as well as ending certain diversity and gender programs in favor of merit.

The Trump administration, for its part, accused the prestigious school of becoming a hotbed of liberalism and tolerating anti-Jewish harassment on campus in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks.

Harvard president Alan Garber vowed to fight antisemitism but said no government “should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

The university ultimately rejected the demands, which resulted in Trump officials moving to freeze billions in research grants.

Just weeks later, the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard.

The Trump administration has denied the cuts were retaliatory and that the grants were already under review even before the April demand letter was sent.

Officials argued that the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons.

“It is the policy of the United States under the Trump Administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,” the Trump administration said in court documents.

With Post wires