
With accreditation threat, student visa subpoenas, Trump administration elevates fight against Harvard
Harvard, meanwhile, has said that the Trump administration's actions are blatantly unlawful, and that it's
Advertisement
'What we're seeing is the administration is persistent, and it's not backing down,' said Brendan Cantwell, a professor of education at Michigan State University. 'Harvard initially put up some resistance, sued the administration, and the administration is simply doubling down on its accusations and its insistence that it has the right to reach into the university and control the way the university does things in exchange for access to federal resources.'
Advertisement
Last week, the White House asserted Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin — by arguing the university 'has been in some cases deliberately indifferent, and in others has been a willful participant in anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students, faculty, and staff.'
Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post
The government gave Harvard 10 days to follow the law, though did not specify how the university could come into compliance, and threatened to cancel all of its federal funding. The notice detailing its findings relied heavily on Harvard's own report on antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias, which the university released in April.
The Trump administration is now also
using those findings to suggest Harvard is not complying with accreditation standards set by the New England Commission of Higher Education. If those standards were to be revoked, Harvard students could lose access to federal financial aid.
'The Department of Education expects the New England Commission of Higher Education to enforce its policies and practices, and to keep the Department fully informed of its efforts to ensure that Harvard is in compliance with federal law and accreditor standards,' US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement.
In a statement, a Harvard spokesperson said the university 'has taken substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of antisemitism in its community,' and that as part of the government's investigation, it shared its antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias report as well as recent reforms it has made on campus.
Advertisement
'Harvard is far from indifferent on this issue and strongly disagrees with the government's findings,' the statement read. 'Harvard continues to comply with the New England Commission of Higher Education's Standards for Accreditation, maintaining its accreditation uninterrupted since its initial review in 1929.'
Accreditors such as the New England Commission of Higher Education are independent nonprofits that are not directly run by the federal government, but do have to be recognized by the US Secretary of Education.
The threat to Harvard's accreditation is one of the most damaging tactics Trump has used so far to punish the university by threatening the institution's very ability to function, said Cantwell, the Michigan State professor.
Harvard University's Commencement Ceremony in May.
Craig F. Walker/Globe Staff
'Without seizing Harvard's wealth directly, it's hard to really challenge it in some ways because its cultural and political power is deep and embedded in American society, and people ... still look at Harvard as a prestigious place even if Trump pulls back federal funding for research grants,' Cantwell said. 'This is one of the very few levers that actually gets at the institution's legitimacy.'
The move also sent a message to accrediting agencies themselves that 'if they want to remain capable of granting and having the authority to make accreditation determinations, they've got to get on board with Trump's program,' Cantwell said.
On its website, the New England Commission of Higher Education wrote it is aware of the Trump administration's assertion that Harvard violated civil rights law. It said the government cannot direct the commission to revoke accreditation and has a process to consider and review 'significant accreditation-related information.'
Advertisement
Because accreditors have their own lengthy processes to determine whether an institution has broken its rules, it's unlikely Harvard will face consequences in the near-term, said Jeremy Bauer-Wolf, who analyzes higher education policy for New America, a D.C. think tank.
'Harvard is not doing well overall, in terms of the policy-battering that the administration is delivering right now. But in terms of their actual accreditation being at risk, it's very minimal,' Bauer-Wolf said. 'This is a process that would take years for to figure out, not weeks or a matter of months, as the Trump administration seems to be pushing for here.'
Trump during the 2024 campaign repeatedly called the accreditation process his
and he has already deployed it once,
the government asserted that the university violated civil rights law, and later notified its accreditor, the Middle States Commission, that it may no longer comply with its accreditation standards. That prompted the commission to notify Columbia's president its accreditation status 'may be in jeopardy.'
Protesters in April encouraged Harvard to fight back against White House demands to overhaul admissions, hiring and student discipline procedures.
Erin Clark/Globe Staff
Lawyers who spoke to the Globe suggested last week said that the Trump administration has taken a freewheeling approach to slashing federal funding at universities, and that the Title VI investigation findings could be used to bolster the administration's position in negotiations or court fights.
Hours after the administration released its findings last week, lawyers for Harvard said in court filings that the government was using the investigation to justify cuts it had already made. They argued that the government 'deliberately chose to ignore' the process under Title VI to cancel federal funding 'in its rush to inflict pain and punishment upon Harvard,' and that a judge should grant summary judgement to Harvard. Lawyers will return for a court hearing on July 21.
Advertisement
In Harvard's other case challenging the Trump administration's efforts to ban the university from hosting international students, a federal judge last month granted preliminary injunctions blocking the government's efforts.
But the Trump administration's decision to subpoena Harvard for information related to student visas shows that it continues to focus on its enrollment of international students.
'We tried to do things the easy way with Harvard. Now, through their refusal to cooperate, we have to do things the hard way,' assistant DHS secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.
'
Harvard, like other universities, has allowed foreign students to abuse their visa privileges and advocate for violence and terrorism on campus.'
A Harvard spokesperson said Wednesday that 'Harvard is committed to following the law, and while the government's subpoenas are unwarranted, the university will continue to cooperate with lawful requests and obligations.'
Aidan Ryan can be reached at
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
12 minutes ago
- USA Today
Coffee prices are already high. Trump's tariffs on Brazil could raise them.
President Donald Trump has threatened a 50% tariff against Brazil, a major producer of green coffee beans. That could lead to higher coffee prices. The best part of waking up? If you're pinching pennies, it may no longer be a fresh cup of coffee. Trump on July 9 threatened a 50% tariff against Brazil, one of the U.S.'s largest suppliers of green coffee beans, starting Aug. 1. That could spell trouble for coffee drinkers, who have already seen price hikes in recent years related to supply chain constraints. "Americans are going to feel the impact of the tariffs in their morning brew. That's a very significant tax on the leading producer of coffee,' said food economist and Michigan State University professor David Ortega, adding that consumers would likely notice higher prices within months of the new tariffs going into effect. Why are coffee prices high right now? Tariffs threaten to add more pressure to an industry already navigating a recent price surge fueled by droughts in countries like Brazil and Vietnam. As of June, the average price of a pound of ground roast coffee cost $8.13, up from $6.25 the year prior and $4.52 in 2020, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 'Inventories were down, but demand is as high as ever,' said Ron Kurnik, owner of Superior Coffee Roasting, a roastery in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. Kurnik, 49, said a pallet of imported green coffee beans that would have cost him roughly $6,000 a year ago runs closer to $9,000 today. He said he's also facing higher packaging costs, since most of his packaging is shipped in from China, due to tariffs. That's translated to higher prices for his customers. As of June 1, a 12-ounce bag of Superior Coffee Roasting coffee costs $13.99, up from $11.99. Kurnik warned the nearly 17% increase may be just the first in a series of pricing changes, especially if Trump's tariffs on Brazil hold. 'About one-third of our purchasing goes to coffee from Brazil. It's definitely one of our staples,' he told USA TODAY. His roastery is far from the only business that leans heavily on imports from Brazil. About 80% of U.S. unroasted coffee imports were sourced from Latin America in 2023, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, with Brazil making up roughly 35% of those imports. To keep costs low, Kurnik is looking into sourcing more coffee from alternative countries like El Salvador and Colombia. He said buying from local producers isn't an option; while Hawaii and Puerto Rico grow coffee, the quantities are too low and prices too high to completely replace imports. 'It's just going to be a really bumpy ride trying to navigate where we're buying, how much we're going to be buying," Kurnik said. But 'I'm still optimistic. If you're not, you shouldn't be owning a business.' The impacts of higher coffee prices would be far-reaching in the U.S. The National Coffee Association estimates two-thirds of American adults drink coffee each day, with consumers spending nearly $110 billion on the drink each year. Price hikes are expected to be most noticeable in grocery stores, with coffee shops seeing less of an impact. Large coffeehouse chains tend to lock in long-term contracts with a diverse array of suppliers, and the final price of a store-bought latte is influenced by far more than just the price of coffee beans. "There's a lot more value-added that you're paying for at a coffee shop," Ortega said. "So it really depends on the type of coffee you're buying, where it's coming from." Still, some coffeehouses' prices are going up. Kurnik said his coffee shop, Superior Cafe, hiked prices on coffee-based drinks anywhere from 25 cents to 50 cents in June. Trump wants more factory jobs in the US. But is there anyone to hire? Other morning staples are getting more expensive Other breakfast staples are also susceptible to higher prices in the months to come. Orange juice prices could be pressed higher if tariff threats hold, as Brazil is a top supplier to the U.S. Plus, high demand and curbed production from record-high temperatures in Japan are driving up prices for matcha, another staple at coffee shops, according to Reuters. Ortega said other caffeinated drinks, such as energy drinks or soda, could see a boost from higher coffee prices on the margin, but 'there's really no easy substitute for a morning cup of coffee for most people.' 'When it comes to our coffee culture, coffee is the predominant source of caffeine we get in the morning in the U.S.,' he said. This year's coffee prices will ultimately depend on whether tariffs hold. In June, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins told the Wall Street Journal the Trump administration may consider exceptions for produce that can't easily be grown within the U.S., including coffee.


The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump bashes ‘foolish Republicans' for getting ‘duped' on Epstein
President Trump on Wednesday bashed 'foolish Republicans' who he said were aiding Democrats by focusing on documents related to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Trump during an Oval Office meeting with the crown prince of Bahrain repeated his claim that the documents connected to Epstein were a 'hoax' started by Democrats. Epstein was arrested on sex trafficking charges and died by suicide in 2019, during Trump's first term. 'Some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net, and so they try and do the Democrats' work,' Trump said. 'I call it the Epstein hoax. Takes a lot of time and effort. Instead of talking about the great achievements we've had…they're wasting their time with a guy who obviously had some very serious problems who died three, four years ago. I'd rather talk about the success we have with the economy,' Trump added. Prominent Republicans and Trump supporters, including Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), have in recent days called for greater transparency from the administration around files related to Epstein's case. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) called for a special counsel to review the administration's handling of the Epstein files. Trump supporters, including some now serving in his administration, have for years espoused conspiracy theories around Epstein's death and suggested the government was covering up information that connected prominent Democrats to the disgraced financier. But Trump has in recent days appeared exasperated by the fixation on Epstein. He has said Attorney General Pam Bondi can release 'credible' evidence related to Epstein, but has otherwise questioned why some of his followers are so fixated on the issue. 'Certain Republicans got duped by the Democrats and they're following a Democrat playbook,' Trump said. 'We do have bigger problems,' he added. The Justice Department and FBI issued a joint memo last week that stated Epstein did not have a client list and confirmed he died by suicide in his New York City jail cell in 2019. The findings incensed members of the MAGA movement, who have for years pushed conspiracy theories about Epstein's death and claims that prominent Democrats would be named on a client list. Epstein, accused in several cases of sex trafficking young girls, ran in high-powered circles with figures that included Trump, former President Clinton, Britain's Prince Andrew and a number of other celebrities and ultrawealthy individuals. Epstein's associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been convicted of sex trafficking.


The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
‘Two can play that game': Newsom hits Trump push to gain House seats
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) warned on Tuesday that 'two can play that game' after President Trump said he's vying to pick up five House seats in Texas during a mid-cycle redistricting. 'Trump said he's going to steal 5 Congressional seats in Texas and gerrymander his way into a 2026 win. Well, two can play that game,' he wrote in a post on X, linking to a clip of his experience on 'Pod Save America' in which he weighed several options on potential redistricting in his state. 'Special sessions. Special elections. Ballot initiatives. New laws. It's all on the table when democracy is on the line,' he added. Trump said on Tuesday that he thinks the Lone Star State can nab five seats for Republicans after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) called for a special session later this month, which includes redistricting, among other priorities. 'And there could be some other states we're going to get another three, or four or five in addition. Texas would be the biggest one,' Trump said. The president suggested he was fine with allowing Democratic states to redraw their own lines, opening the door to other blue states conducting mid-cycle redistricting. The push comes as Republicans are bracing for an unfavorable midterm environment, in which the president's party typically faces headwinds. California has an independent commission, which creates the state's maps. The independent commission was borne out of a 2008 ballot measure that voters passed, later updated in 2010. Whatever solution Newsom chooses to pursue, he would have to contend with working round the independent commission or getting rid of it altogether. 'I'm talking to members of my legislature, whatever our alternatives, we could do a special session. I could call for one today, if I chose to, we could then put something on the ballot, and I could call a special election,' Newsom said on the 'Pod Save America' podcast. 'We can change the constitution with the consent of the voters, and I think we would win that. I think people understand what's at stake in California.' He also suggested they're looking into the legal question of whether or not the independent commission has to be involved during mid-cycle redistricting.