Trump administration finds Harvard failed to protect Jewish students, threatens to cut all funding
WASHINGTON — Harvard University failed to protect Jewish students from harassment, the Trump administration concluded after an investigation, threatening to cut all federal funding from the Ivy League school if it fails to take action.
A federal task force sent a letter to Harvard on Monday finding the university violated civil rights laws requiring colleges to protect students from discrimination based on race or national origin. It says investigators found Harvard was at times a 'willful participant in anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students, faculty, and staff' and that campus leaders allowed antisemitism to fester on the campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
'Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard's relationship with the federal government,' officials said in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press and first reported by The Wall Street Journal.
Harvard did not immediately comment.
It's the latest intensification in the White House's battle with Harvard, which lost more than $2.6 billion in federal research grants after rejecting a list of federal demands calling for sweeping changes to campus governance, hiring and admissions.
The Trump administration for months has accused Harvard of tolerating antisemitism on its campus, but a formal finding paves the way for a negotiated agreement or — if one isn't reached — an attempt to cut the school off from federal dollars.
Much of the investigation's evidence focuses on campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war. It says the campus was 'overrun by an impermissible, multiweek encampment' that left Jewish and Israeli students fearful and disrupted their studies.
It accuses Harvard of imposing lax and inconsistent discipline against students who participated in the encampment, noting that none was suspended.
Harvard President Alan Garber has acknowledged problems with antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias on campus, but he says Harvard has made strides to fight prejudice. He announced new initiatives in April after Harvard released internal reports finding evidence of antisemitism and Islamophobia on campus.
'Harvard cannot — and will not — abide bigotry,' Garber wrote in releasing the reports.
The Monday letter finds that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Such findings have almost always been resolved through voluntary resolutions between schools and the federal government. The Trump administration has taken a much sharper edge than its predecessors, however.
It has been decades since an administration even attempted to fully strip a school or college of its federal funding over civil rights violations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
10 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Minnesota agriculture institute joins lawsuit against USDA to save grant funding
WASHINGTON - A Minnesota agriculture group says the Trump administration's canceling of so-called DEI grants in farm country broke the law and imperiled a food network initiative's future, in a federal lawsuit filed in the District of Columbia. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis joined other farm sector non-profits who said last week in a lawsuit that the U.S. Department of Agriculture slashed grants for DEI - diversity, equity and inclusion - haphazardly and without individual review, violating federal law. The grants are intended to promote DEI efforts, from a San Francisco Bay Area initiative to boost LGBTQ and multiracial farmers to a New York soil health program. In Minnesota the IATP's grant for $111,695 to finance the MinnieAg Network, including tools for bridging farmers with food and ag industry officials, was terminated just six months from the finish line. That forced the organization to spend $30,000 from its own pocket to finish the grant's goals. "The abrupt and unexpected cancelation of our grant comes at a critical juncture just before we were planning to finalize our 'Farm and Food Systems 101′ resources to make this information available to all," said Erin McKee VanSlooten, Community Food Systems program director at IATP. VanSlooten said the cuts amount to "negating" 18 months of work, and she worries about the program's future. Upon taking office in January, President Trump signed a flurry of executive orders aiming to root out government funding for equity, sustainability and diversity programs under the charges that such programs were discriminatory or wasteful. According to the ag groups' lawsuit, when USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins posted to X that she'd cancelled a grant in the Bay Area to "educate queer, trans and BIPOC urban farmers and consumers about food justice," she said her agency would refocus around "American farming, ranching and forestry." The lawsuit alleges staff at USDA did not properly review programs and the agency could not revoke funding previously granted. The plaintiffs cover a wide swath of agriculture groups working to build pathways for non-traditional farmers to enter the industry, improve soil health and build climate and food resilience. One nonprofit's grant work aimed to build more trees in cities to provide buffers from the heat. Another sought to teach producers about no-till farming. The lawsuit names USDA, Rollins and other Trump administration officials, including the acting director of the Department of Government Efficiency. In a statement, a USDA spokesperson said they would not comment on pending litigation. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Newsweek
12 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Did Republicans Just Kill the Filibuster?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Republicans are relying on rarely employed accounting methods to push Donald Trump's "one, big beautiful bill" through the Senate, and in doing so could upend established Congressional procedures surrounding the reconciliation process and the filibuster. Why It Matters The filibuster—a procedural move allowing senators to extend debates on bills indefinitely without a 60-vote majority—has long been viewed as a move to encourage bipartisanship in Congress and as a bulwark against political dominance by slim majorities in the upper chamber. Experts told Newsweek that recent moves by Republicans while trying to pass Trump's tax legislation could create new precedent surrounding the filibuster for years to come, including past the period of GOP control. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo What To Know Republicans are employing the reconciliation process to pass Trump's tax bill, the centerpiece of his second-term domestic agenda, allowing them to eventually advance the bill with only a majority vote rather than the 60 votes normally needed to do away with the threat of a filibuster. A central element of the bill, which the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates would add $4.2 trillion to the nation's deficit through 2034, is the extension of the tax cuts enacted during Trump's first term. Sweeping fiscal moves of this kind are traditionally restricted by the Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, which limits the sort of policies that can be folded into bills passed through reconciliation, and forbids legislation from adding to the nation's deficit beyond 10 years. However, as reported by AP, Congressional Budget Office Director Phillip Swagel recently notified Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of the Senate Budget Committee that elements of the Big, Beautiful Bill would increase the deficit "in years after 2034." Going by this assessment, the Republican bill would violate the rule that determines what legislation can clear the Senate with a simple majority, which could force Republicans to amend significant portions of the legislation. In response to these concerns, and Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough advising that certain provisions in the bill were not budget-related and therefore in violation of Senate rules, Republicans have now argued that Trump's 2017 tax cuts should be treated as part of the fiscal "baseline" forecast, even though these have not yet been extended. Republicans have also cited Section 312 of Congressional Budget Act to argue that the final authority for determining baseline spending figures, and whether the tax portion of the bill violates Byrd, lies with Republican Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham. When approached by Newsweek for comment, a spokesperson for Senator Graham said: "Republicans do not want a $4 trillion tax hike—which is what would happen if the Democrats had their way and the 2017 tax cuts expired." They also referenced past support from Democrats for the notion that the Senate Budget Committee Chairman has the power to establish the baseline, citing former Chairman Bernie Sanders' 2022 remark that "the Budget Committee, through its Chair, makes the call on questions of numbers." Sanders is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Experts have said that this new "Byrd Bath"—as it has been referred to by some on Capitol Hill—could establish a new precedent regarding budget reconciliation and the avoidance of filibusters by those in power in the future. "The budget process established in 1974 and reinforced by rules and precedents since then was intended to allow a simple majority to pass a budget as long as the contents of a budget measure were limited to budget-related spending and tax provisions," Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek. "Playing partisan games with the budget process to set aside the 10-year budget period or use it for nonbudget purposes is contrary to the plain language of the Budget Act and the Byrd rules adopted by the Senate," he added. "It is a precedent that will get repeated over and over again." Michael Ettlinger, a political adviser who previously worked with the Biden-Harris campaign, said, "If the Republican's new accounting method becomes the norm, it will be far easier to pass deficit increasing legislation in the Senate with a simple majority vote—limiting the impact of the filibuster." Ettlinger, who is currently a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), noted that nothing would then stop Democrats from employing the same precedents to bypass the filibuster in future bills. "If the Democrats reclaim the Senate they will have the opportunity to undermine the filibuster as the Republicans have done," he told Newsweek. "It's their choice." Democratic Senator Rubén Gallego, reiterated this argument, posting to X: "There is no filibuster if the Senate [Republicans] do this and when Dems take power there is no reason why we should not use reconciliation to pass immigration reform." What People Are Saying Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, in a statement released Sunday, said: "The only way for Republicans to pass this horribly destructive bill, which is based on budget math as fake as Donald Trump's tan, was to go nuclear and hide it behind a bunch of procedural jargon. We're now operating in a world where the filibuster applies to Democrats but not to Republicans, and that's simply unsustainable given the triage that'll be required whenever the Trump era finally ends." Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek: "If a small Senate majority can put anything in a budget measure or ignore the ten-year budget window, then nothing is left for regular legislation that is subject to a filibuster. It represents a "get-it-while-you-can" partisanship that Republicans have adopted since [Mitch] McConnell became leader that, step-by-step, has undermined longstanding Senate norms." Republican Senator and Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, speaking on the Senate floor on Monday, said: "I'm not the first chairman to change a baseline for different reasons." "The budget Chairman, under [Section] 312, sets the baseline," Graham continued. "This has been acknowledged by Republicans and Democrats." What Happens Next? Debate over President Trump's megabill has now reached the final stages. A "vote-a-rama" on the bill—a marathon session during which lawmakers may introduce amendments to a reconciliation package—kicked off in the Senate on Monday morning. Should the bill pass a Senate vote, expected this week, it will then be sent back down to the House for approval. On Friday, Trump said that his preferred deadline of July 4 was not the "end all," but later said via Truth Social that the House of Representatives "must be ready" to send the bill to his desk by this date.
Wall Street Journal
16 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
What the Right Gets Wrong About Birth Rates
Matthew Hennessey is correct that Congress alone can't boost the birth rate ('You Can't Legislate Fertility,' op-ed, June 24). This isn't a libertarian aphorism. It's the fairest reading of the global evidence. Enthusiasts of baby bonuses point to isolated examples of success—say, in Quebec or France—but none of these cases boasts anything like an above-replacement birth rate. Effect sizes are minimal, mostly temporary and dwarfed by whatever else is leading young people to see having kids as less important than personal and professional goals. The only high-income country that has managed such a feat is Israel thanks to a larger percentage of religious families. This is a good clue that differences in birth rates big enough to matter come from what people want. When people value kids more than other things, they have kids. To believe that the real story lies somewhere else—in the tax code, the China shock, immigration or middle-class wages—is nonsensical. The richest and freest people in the world can obviously afford to have kids.
