The Trump administration escalated its confrontation with Harvard University on Monday by formally accusing the institution of allowing antisemitism to thrive, a move that threatens Harvard’s access to federal funding, including student financial aid.
In communication sent to Harvard, a federal task force charged that the university was complicit in antisemitic harassment targeting Jewish students and staff. The task force warned of referring the situation to the Justice Department for a civil rights lawsuit if corrective actions were not promptly instituted by Harvard.
This development amplifies the administration’s ongoing disputes with Harvard, which has already endured financial penalties due to its refusal to comply with a series of federal directives aimed at overhauling campus management, recruitment, and admissions policies. Funding reallocations have already impacted more than $2.6 billion in research grants. Additionally, the civil rights allegations risk Harvard’s ability to accept federal loans or grants for student attendance — a severe sanction likened to a “death sentence” in the realm of higher education.
The letter, obtained by various news outlets, makes it clear that noncompliance would terminate all federal financial support to Harvard and further strain its interactions with the federal government.
For months, the Trump administration has accused Harvard of enabling antisemitism, but this investigative conclusion provides the administration with a mechanism to withdraw more federal funding.
President Trump has openly criticized Harvard yet recently hinted that a resolution could soon be achieved. He noted on social media that Harvard had behaved “extremely appropriately” during ongoing discussions, without specifying any agreement particulars.
While Harvard has not confirmed ongoing negotiations, it vehemently rejected the government’s conclusions and reaffirmed its commitment to combating discrimination.
“Antisemitism is a real and unacceptable problem in any context,” Harvard stated. “The university has enacted significant measures to tackle the underlying causes of antisemitism within its community.”
Federal officials documented their stance in a 57-page evaluation by the Department of Health and Human Services’ civil rights division. Several agencies are part of a federal task force addressing antisemitism.
The investigation leaned heavily on a Harvard-commissioned campus antisemitism analysis publicized in April. Using that report, officials highlighted incidents where Jewish students alleged they were spat on and faced derogatory chants like “Heil Hitler.”
Furthermore, the investigation scrutinized protest activities related to the previous year’s Israel-Hamas conflict. In their letter to Harvard, federal authorities described an “impermissible, prolonged encampment” on campus, leaving Jewish and Israeli students feeling threatened and interrupting their education.
It accused the university of applying weak and uneven disciplinary actions against encampment participants, noting no suspensions ensued.
While acknowledging discrimination issues, Harvard President Alan Garber has claimed progress in fighting bias, unveiling new strategies following the antisemitism report.
“Harvard cannot — and will not — endorse bigotry,” Garber asserted.
The letter indicated Harvard breached Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Historically, similar cases are resolved through voluntary cooperation between educational institutions and the federal government. Still, the Trump administration has adopted a more aggressive stance.
It’s been years since any administration considered revoking federal funding over civil rights disputes. However, in a notable shift, the Trump administration is pursuing such measures in a lawsuit against Maine related to transgender athletes, threatening parallel actions in a California investigation.
Previously, Harvard faced sanctions after challenging White House accusations of antisemitism and liberal bias. Besides cutting research funding, attempts were made to block foreign student enrollment and revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
Some of these actions met legal opposition, with Harvard claiming governmental retaliation. Prior funding reductions were actioned under a provision permitting funding cuts misaligned with federal priorities, a tactic facing judicial challenges. By labeling it a civil rights issue, the government has opened a pathway for further punitive measures against Harvard.