Since President Trump's return to office in January, his administration has intensified efforts to combat antisemitism on college campuses, positioning the issue as a central pillar of its civil rights agenda. To carry out those efforts, the administration has directed the Department of Education (DOE) and other federal agencies to closely monitor institutions of higher education (IHEs) for potential violations of federal law, with particular focus on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.
The administration has also signaled a willingness to withhold federal funding from IHEs found to be violating Title VI and other laws—a seldom-used tool the federal government can use to ensure compliance with federal law. The potential move sparked legal and political tensions with several IHEs across the country, including one of the nation's most prominent, Harvard University.
The relationship between the Trump administration and Harvard has grown increasingly acrimonious over issues related to funding. The escalation reached a climax in April when Harvard sued the administration after it froze the university's federal funding. The tensions between Harvard and the administration have played out through formal investigations, contentious public statements, and legal maneuvering over the last few months, briefly recapped below.
Key Events in the Harvard vs. Trump Administration Civil Rights Dispute
- On March 31, three federal agencies—DOE, Health and Human Services (HHS), and U.S. General Services Administration (GSA)—announced a review of Harvard's federal grants and contracts, which included more than $250 million in contracts and almost $9 billion in grants. The review was undertaken in the context of the Trump administration's Antisemitism Task Force to ensure that Harvard was complying with its "civil rights responsibilities."
- On April 11, the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard outlining its list of demands in order for the university to maintain its relationship with the federal government. Some of those demands included dismantling its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and offices; ensuring each academic department, along with the student body, has viewpoint diversity; reforming its student discipline policies; sharing information with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and adopting merit-based hiring practices. The administration informed Harvard it had until August 2025 to make these reforms.
- On April 14, Harvard sent a letter to the administration rejecting the outlined demands, stating, "Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government."
- On April 16, DHS canceled two of Harvard's grants, totaling just under $3 million, and warned that Harvard may lose its ability to enroll international students, who make up almost 30% of its student body.
- On April 21, Harvard sued the administration, arguing that the cancellation of federal funding violated First Amendment protections and calling any research funding freezes "flatly unlawful."
- On May 2, Trump called for Harvard to lose its tax-exempt status.
- On May 7, DOE Secretary Linda McMahon announced in a letter that Harvard would no longer be eligible for federal grants, calling the university a "mockery" and alleging it was "engaging in a systemic pattern of violating federal law."
- On May 13, the administration froze another $450 million in federal funding and cited the university's "dark problem" on its campus, which the administration called a "breeding ground for virtue signaling and discrimination."
- On May 15, the Department of Energy (Energy) ended an $89 million research grant point to Harvard's alleged "racial discrimination."
- On May 22, DHS sought to revoke Harvard's ability to enroll international students, calling it a "privilege," and "not a right." Harvard filed suit and a federal judge blocked the revocation until the case plays out in court.
- On June 4, Trump signed an Executive Order suspending the entry of foreign nationals seeking to study in exchange programs at Harvard. A federal judge blocked the Executive Order pending further arguments.
Harvard Sues After Trump Freezes Funding
On April 21, 2025, Harvard sued the administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the court) following the administration's freeze of federal funds, seeking the freeze to be declared unconstitutional and/or set aside. The university called the administration's actions "unlawful" because they violate the First Amendment, which does not permit the government to interfere with private actors' speech "to advance its own vision of ideological balance."
Harvard argued in its complaint that the government's demands "cut at the core of [its] constitutionally protected academic freedom because they seek to assert governmental control over Harvard's research, academic programs, community, and governance." Furthermore, Harvard argued that the demands are unrelated to Harvard's federal funding.
Such a threat to its academic freedom, Harvard argued, would also deliver an "equal blow" to scientific research on campus. Because of the elimination of funding, Harvard would be forced to reduce or halt ongoing research projects and terminate researchers, staff, and administrators, and it would have to replace the frozen funds from its own resources, leading to reductions in graduate students, faculty, and staff.
Last, Harvard contended that the administration's actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when the administration failed to comply with its own regulations before instituting the freeze. Specifically, Harvard claimed the administration violated its due process rights by providing insufficient notice and failing to provide an opportunity for a hearing. Moreover, Harvard argued that the regulations required the administration to secure compliance by voluntary means first. To that end, Harvard also asked the court to set aside DOE's actions as arbitrary and capricious.
It is unclear when the court will reach a decision on Harvard's petition or whether it will set aside the administration's freeze. However, what is clear is that the administration is poised to aggressively oversee IHEs—including their tax-exempt status—to ensure they are complying with federal law and the administration's civil rights agenda.
While some IHEs have taken a more collaborative approach to working with the administration, others—like Harvard—are resisting its vigorous oversight. Though the administration has employed some new tactics to ensure compliance, longstanding recommendations for IHEs remain in effect, with modifications based on the administration's articulated policy preferences.
- Review internal policies and protocols (e.g., student or employee discipline, promotion and hiring, admissions) and ensure those responsible for implementing them do so equitably
- Comply with all applicable federal laws and regulations, particularly around civil rights related to national origin, and resolve any violations quickly and impartially
- Observe and take note of memoranda and directives from the federal government
- Consult with internal and external counsel to ensure compliance with all laws and regulations, leveraging their unique strengths based on expertise
As IHEs work to address requests from local and federal governments, the authors of this article, or any lawyers in Venable's Labor and Employment Group, remain available to assist in navigating their legal issues and implementing policies that comply with local and federal law.