A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s recent attempt to prevent international students from entering the United States or obtaining visas to attend Harvard University. The order came just hours after Harvard expanded its existing lawsuit against an earlier Trump istration move regarding foreign students. 52y13

According to Politico, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that Harvard would face immediate and irreparable harm if Trump’s Wednesday proclamation were allowed to proceed. The proclamation had authorized the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department to effectively ban foreign nationals from studying or teaching at Harvard.

“Harvard is refusing to provide the federal government with information about crimes and misconduct committed by its foreign students,” Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle wrote on X.. “This is a threat to national security, and we will vigorously defend @POTUS’s proclamation.”

Harvard claims Trump’s actions are retaliatory and unconstitutional 542f8

Harvard’s legal team has argued that Trump’s actions are not aimed at protecting U.S. interests but rather represent a “government vendetta” against the university. The school’s amended lawsuit points to recent presidential statements on social media and in the Oval Office as evidence of unconstitutional retaliation for Harvard’s decision to challenge his istration in court.

The dispute between Harvard and the Trump istration has primarily centered on the university’s handling of campus antisemitism. While the istration claims Harvard has failed to protect Jewish students from harassment, the university contends that the istration’s demands go beyond addressing antisemitism and seek to control the institution’s governance, curriculum, and ideological direction.

The impact of Trump’s proclamation, though temporarily blocked, would have been significant for Harvard’s international student community, which comprises approximately 27 percent of total enrollment. More than 6,700 international students were enrolled at the university as of fall 2024. While the order did not immediately revoke existing student visas, it threatened to prevent new foreign students and faculty from entering the U.S. for the fall semester.

The Justice Department has indicated it will continue to challenge Harvard’s legal efforts to overturn Trump’s directive. This comes as the State Department recently announced enhanced vetting procedures for foreign students seeking to attend Harvard, despite the court’s initial restraining order. Harvard’s lawyers note that this increased scrutiny is part of what they describe as an “unprecedented, government-wide campaign” against the university.

The Trump istration is intensifying its campaign against Harvard University, with the White House gathering officials from nearly a dozen agencies to discuss additional punitive measures against the prestigious institution.

According to Politico, the Wednesday meeting, which included representatives from multiple federal departments, aimed to develop new strategies against Harvard following a recent setback where a federal judge blocked the istration’s attempt to bar international students from enrollment.

One istration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged the challenging nature of their position, stating, “We’re fighting a losing battle.” The official further itted that their actions have inadvertently cast Harvard in a sympathetic light, noting, “We’ve taken one of the most evil institutions and made them the victim.”

White House plans new measures across multiple departments 3b4ln

The istration is now exploring creative ways to maintain pressure on the university, with expected actions coming from the State, Treasury, Health and Human Services, and Justice departments as early as next month. Potential measures include expanding the Department of Justice’s investigation into Harvard’s issions policies and reducing funding to Harvard-d medical institutions.

The conflict, which has been brewing since February, escalated significantly after an April 11 letter containing various demands was mistakenly sent to Harvard when a potential deal was still possible. Following this communication breakdown, the istration implemented several punitive measures, including freezing $2.2 billion in multiyear research grants, cutting $60 million in contracts, and barring Harvard from future grants.

President Trump has remained vocal in his criticism of the university, recently threatening to revoke its tax-exempt status. During an unrelated press conference on Wednesday, Trump stated that “Harvard is treating our country with great disrespect and all they’re doing is getting in deeper and deeper and deeper.”

The university has responded by taking legal action, successfully obtaining a federal judge’s block on the istration’s attempt to bar international students. This block will remain in effect while both parties negotiate over a potential injunction to maintain the status quo during legal proceedings. Harvard University has declined to comment on these developments.

A federal judge has extended her block on the Trump istration’s attempt to prevent Harvard University from enrolling foreign students, following a court hearing in Boston on Thursday.

According to Politico, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs maintained her temporary restraining order after the istration revealed it would give Harvard a 30-day period to contest the cancellation of its authority to it international students.

Despite weeks of confrontational rhetoric toward Harvard regarding pro-Palestinian protests and antisemitism claims, Trump showed signs of softening his stance. “I’m looking out for the country and for Harvard,” the president said. “I want Harvard to do well. I want Harvard to be great again… Harvard has to understand that the last thing I want to do is hurt them. They’re hurting themselves.”

istration offers compromise as visa concerns grow 25195p

The istration has proposed a 15 percent cap on foreign students, which would effectively halve Harvard’s current international student population of 27 percent. This comes as Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced plans to “aggressively revoke” visas for Chinese students at American universities.

The case has revealed immediate impacts on Harvard’s international community. According to Maureen Martin, director of immigration services in Harvard’s International Office, at least 10 international students or scholars planned for fall enrollment reported that their visa applications were refused for “istrative processing” following the istration’s notice.

During the hearing, Judge Burroughs emphasized the necessity of maintaining the court order, despite the istration’s 30-day reprieve. The judge expressed concern about reports of visa processing delays and revocations, which government attorney Tiberius Davis addressed with limited specificity, citing the rapid pace of developments.

Harvard’s attorney Ian Gershengorn argued that the 30-day delay does not eliminate ongoing harm to the university, including the risk of foreign students potentially transferring to other institutions. He maintained that Harvard continues to face differential treatment from the istration, stating, “There continues to be a different set of rules for Harvard and a different set of procedures for Harvard.”

This case represents part of a larger conflict between Harvard and the Trump istration, which includes a separate lawsuit over $2 billion in grant cuts to the university. Judge Burroughs, who previously ruled in Harvard’s favor in a significant affirmative action case, will continue to oversee negotiations between both parties as they work toward a potential injunction to maintain the status quo while the case proceeds.

After a fifteen-year legal dispute, Harvard University has given up ownership of 175-year-old daguerreotypes, considered the oldest known photographs of enslaved people in the United States, to the International African American Museum in South Carolina. The photographs show Renty Taylor, an enslaved man, and his daughter Delia. They were taken in 1850 at the request of Harvard biologist Louis Agassiz as part of a deeply racist study meant to the false and pseudoscientific idea of polygenism, which wrongly argued that people of African descent were inferior.

This settlement is a major win for Tamara Lanier, a great-great-great-granddaughter of Renty and Delia, who started the legal fight in 2019. According to AP News, the photographs, taken by Joseph T. Zealy, were not simple portraits. They were part of a cruel and dehumanizing process. Renty and Delia, along with other enslaved individuals, were forced to pose naked and were photographed from different angles, their bodies treated as nothing more than objects for Agassiz’s research.

Because of this, these images are not just a record of slavery but also a reminder of the brutal scientific racism that ed it. For years, these daguerreotypes stayed in Harvard’s possession, sometimes used for academic purposes and even licensed for a fee. As reported by Washington Post, Lanier’s lawsuit claimed that Harvard’s ownership and use of these images, taken without her ancestors’ consent, was both morally and legally wrong.

Harvard finally gives up enslavement photos 5h2x5i

The legal fight was complicated. In 2021, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that Lanier did not have the right to own the photographs because she was not related to the photographer or the original owners. However, the court recognized Harvard’s role in the historical injustices tied to the creation of the images and allowed Lanier’s claim for emotional distress damages to move forward. This opened the door for the eventual settlement.

The full details of the settlement have not been shared, and the amount of any financial compensation remains private. However, it was publicly confirmed that Harvard would give up the daguerreotypes to the South Carolina museum. Harvard’s continued statement that they could not definitively prove Lanier’s family connection to Renty and Delia shows how difficult tracing lineage across generations of enslaved people can be.

Harvard has been going through a rough week. This comes only days after firing a professor for shady dealings and in the middle of a lawsuit with Trump.

Lanier and her legal team called the settlement a huge victory, not just for her family but for all descendants of enslaved people. They described the return of the photographs as a form of reparations, recognizing the moral duty to address the historical wrongs committed by the university. The transfer to the International African American Museum is seen as extremely important. This museum, which focuses on telling the stories of African Americans, is seen as a much more fitting and respectful place for these artifacts.

The museum’s CEO said they were proud to become the home of these “difficult but precious artifacts” and promised to work with Lanier to make sure the photographs are displayed in a way that honors the humanity of Renty and Delia. While stating that it wanted to move the daguerreotypes to a more appropriate setting for some time, Harvard did not publicly it its historical role in ing slavery or confirm Lanier’s direct family ties to Renty and Delia. This lack of acknowledgment shows the ongoing struggle between the university’s effort to present itself as progressive and its difficult history tied to slavery.

The Trump istration has intensified its dispute with Harvard University, instructing all federal agencies to cut off their connections with the school. This order, sent through the General Services istration (GSA), requires the cancellation of roughly $100 million in current contracts spread across nine federal departments.

The decision, first reported by The Guardian, marks a major escalation in the istration’s continued efforts against Harvard, including accusations of unfair treatment in issions and a failure to fully cooperate with federal demands.

The istration has given several reasons for this extreme step, according to Fox. A key part of its argument is the claim that Harvard has engaged in racial discrimination in its issions process and other areas of student life. The GSA letter, signed by Federal Acquisition Service Commissioner Josh Gruenbaum, specifically references the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that barred colleges from considering race in issions, stating that Harvard has not followed this decision.

Trump calls on other agencies to pull funding from Harvard 3s5vy

The istration also claims that Harvard has displayed a “troubling lack of concern for the safety and well-being of Jewish students,” though it does not provide details about specific incidents. This order is the harshest measure taken against Harvard so far since Harvard refused to yield.

The istration froze around $3.2 billion in research funding and tried to stop the university from itting international students, though federal courts temporarily halted these actions. Harvard has fought back strongly, filing multiple lawsuits arguing that the istration’s moves violate constitutional protections for academic freedom and are unlawful. The university’s president, Alan Garber, has publicly criticized the istration’s demands, calling them illegal attempts to influence hiring and curriculum decisions.

Some of the contracts set to be canceled include a $527,000 agreement for Harvard ManageMentor Licenses, a $523,000 contract for energy drink research, and a $39,000 contract for graduate student research services. Federal agencies are expected to submit their plans for ending these contracts by early June.

The istration’s actions against Harvard are not just about alleged discrimination. The conflict also involves repeated requests for information about student activities and protests, including demands for audio and video recordings related to threats, “violations of rights,” and “dangerous or violent behavior” by students who are not U.S. citizens.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under Secretary Kristi Noem, took away Harvard’s certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program after deciding the university’s response was inadequate, though a court order has temporarily stopped this move. A hearing will soon decide whether this temporary block should continue. The istration has also suggested redirecting Harvard’s federal funding toward vocational schools, which could amount to billions of dollars.

sca Gino, a well-known behavioral scientist once one of the highest-paid employees at Harvard University, lost her tenure and was fired after a lengthy investigation into claims that she manipulated and fabricated data in several of her research papers.

The case lasted almost four years and included a complicated series of accusations, investigations, legal disputes, and, in the end, a rare decision to revoke tenure, something Harvard had not done in many years.

Gino, famous for studying dishonesty and ethical behavior, ironically became the center of a major academic scandal. According to The Crimson, the first concerns came up in 2021 when a data analysis blog called Data Colada published posts suggesting that one of Gino’s co-authored studies contained fake data. This study claimed that putting honesty pledges at the start of a form made people answer more truthfully, but it was later retracted when evidence showed the data had been fabricated.

Data Colada later found similar problems in three more of Gino’s studies, which led Harvard to start a formal investigation in October 2021. The investigation, which continued through 2022 and 2023, included interviews with Gino and her research partners, reviews of her data, emails, and manuscripts, and hiring an outside forensics company to examine the data, per the NY Post. Investigators determined that Gino had altered observations to strengthen her research findings, contradicting her claims that mistakes by research assistants or deliberate tampering were to blame.

Harvard gets rid of professor over data manipulation 4x4z6n

Harvard presented its findings to the Dean of Harvard Business School in March 2023. After the report, Gino was placed on unpaid leave, and the process to fire her began. The situation drew even more attention because of Gino’s high salary. Records show she was one of Harvard’s top five highest-paid employees in 2018 and 2019, earning over $1 million each year. This large paycheck made the public even more interested in the case, especially given the accusations against her.

Gino responded quickly to the allegations, strongly denying any academic misconduct on her website and filing a $25 million lawsuit against Harvard, Harvard Business School Dean Srikant Datar, and the Data Colada bloggers. She accused them of defamation and claimed the investigation and her unpaid leave damaged her reputation, caused her to lose income, and hurt her career.

Gino’s legal efforts had mixed results. In September 2024, a federal judge in Boston dismissed her defamation claims, ruling that as a public figure, her work could be scrutinized under the First Amendment.

Other parts of her lawsuit continued, including her claim that Harvard treated her unfairly when disciplining her, violating its own tenure policies. She later added Title VII and discrimination claims to the lawsuit. This is all while Harvard has to deal with the Trump istration lawsuit and possibly losing its tax exempt status.

Despite her legal fight, Harvard’s investigation ended with the decision to revoke Gino’s tenure. The university confirmed that the Harvard Corporation made this decision earlier in May 2025, marking a historic moment as the first time in decades that Harvard had taken away a professor’s tenure.

Former President Donald Trump has escalated his ongoing conflict with Harvard University by threatening to redistribute $3 billion in grant money from the institution to trade schools. This latest development adds to a series of actions Trump has taken against the prestigious university in recent months.

According to Politico, the announcement came through Trump’s Truth Social platform on Monday, where he criticized Harvard while suggesting the reallocation of funds. In his post, Trump labeled the university as “very antisemitic,” though he did not provide specific details about how or when this fund redistribution would occur.

“What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!” Trump wrote on the social media platform, emphasizing his stance on directing the funds toward trade schools instead of the Ivy League institutions.

International student enrollment becomes focal point of dispute p4b34

The tension between Trump and Harvard has intensified following recent events involving international students. Last week, Trump attempted to block Harvard’s ability to enroll international students, who make up approximately 27 percent of the university’s total student population. This action was initiated after what Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem described as Harvard’s failure to comply with an extensive public records request from DHS. However, a federal judge intervened on Friday, blocking this attempt.

Trump expressed frustration about Harvard’s response to requests for foreign student information, stating that they were waiting for lists to determine “how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country.” He suggested that Harvard’s slow response to providing these documents might be intentional.

The conflict between Trump and Harvard began in April when the university refused to comply with Trump istration demands to modify its ission, disciplinary, and governance standards. The White House responded by blocking $2.2 billion in federal grants from reaching the institution.

The situation further deteriorated in early May when Trump announced his intention to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status. In response to these actions, Harvard has filed lawsuits against the White House, challenging both the funding freeze and the restrictions on foreign student enrollment. Neither Harvard nor the White House has provided immediate comments on these recent developments.

The ongoing dispute represents a significant challenge for Harvard, which faces multiple restrictions and potential financial implications from these actions. As the legal battles continue, the proposed redistribution of funds to trade schools remains a central point of contention in this escalating conflict between the former president and one of America’s most prestigious educational institutions.

The Trump istration’s effort to stop Harvard University from itting international students has led to a major global reaction. China has stepped in to provide “unconditional offers” to students impacted by the decision. This development came after the istration canceled Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which essentially blocked the university from taking in foreign students for the 2025 to 2026 school year.

According to The Independant, around 1,300 Chinese students were affected, making up about one-fifth of Harvard’s total international student body. The istration defended its decision by claiming the university had issues with antisemitism and was working with the Chinese Communist Party (C). The istration’s move was quickly met with legal opposition.

Per The Guardian, A federal judge temporarily stopped the ban from being enforced, calling it a “clear violation of the constitution” and warning that it could cause “immediate and irreversible harm” to Harvard. This temporary hold, along with Harvard’s own legal efforts, left many students in limbo. The university stressed that losing the ability to enroll international students would put it at a major disadvantage in competing for the world’s top talent, noting how crucial these students are to maintaining its academic reputation.

China will take the students Harvard is forced to reject 1o3g38

Following the controversy, China took swift action by urging its universities to welcome students displaced by the ban. Hong Kong’s education secretary called on local universities to offer and attract “top students from around the world.” Hong Kong, home to five of the world’s top 100 universities, presented itself as a new center for education.

One such institution, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, immediately guaranteed ission, simplified the application process, and promised academic assistance to affected Harvard students. The Trump istration’s demands went further than just banning international students.

China seems to be jumping at the opportunity to take over what the U.S. leaves behind and make the country look bad. China took over the US donations to WHO after saying it wouldn’t back down on tariffs until the U.S. does first.

It also asked Harvard to hand over the names and nationalities of all its international students, a list of about 6,793 individuals. The istration also threatened to withhold federal funding unless the university agreed to several conditions. This included shutting down diversity programs and stopping pro-Palestine protests.

Harvard University has taken legal action against the Trump istration, asking the court to reverse a ban that prevents international students from enrolling. The university claims the ban, put in place by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under Secretary Kristi Noem, breaks the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

According to CNBC, this ban impacts more than 7,000 current international students who hold F-1 visas, effectively cutting out a quarter of Harvard’s student population. The DHS decision also canceled Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification, which means the university can no longer it any new international students.

Harvard’s lawsuit argues that the ban is an illegal punishment for the university’s refusal to follow what it calls the istration’s attempts to control how Harvard is run, what it teaches, and the beliefs of its faculty and students, per CBS News. The university says the revocation is a “clear violation of the First Amendment” and the Due Process Clause, pointing out that DHS did not give Harvard a fair chance to respond or provide enough reasoning for the ban.

Harvard suing Trump istration over retaliatory ban 111h5y

Harvard insists that it fully answered DHS’s requests for information about student visa holders, even though DHS claimed the responses were not good enough. The lawsuit notes that the ban was announced just days before graduation, making the situation even more disruptive and harmful. Harvard states that it submitted the required information on April 30 and provided additional details on May 14, but DHS still revoked the SEVP certification on May 22 without explanation.

The Trump istration defended the ban by accusing Harvard of allowing an unsafe campus environment where “anti-American, pro-terrorist protesters” harassed and attacked people, including Jewish students. DHS also claimed Harvard worked with the Chinese Communist Party by hosting and training of a Chinese paramilitary group. The istration’s move against Harvard came after Secretary Noem sent a request on April 16, demanding details about every student visa holder within 10 business days.

The request accused Harvard of not doing enough to oppose antisemitism. This action also followed an earlier lawsuit filed by Harvard against the istration for cutting over $2 billion in federal funding after the university refused to audit its students and faculty for “viewpoint diversity.” That earlier dispute included the Trump istration suggesting that the IRS take away Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

Harvard President Alan Garber called the istration’s actions illegal and unnecessary. In a letter to the school community,  he wrote, “We condemn this unlawful and unwarranted action” by the Trump istration. The government has claimed that its destructive action is based on Harvard’s failure to comply with requests for information from the US Department of Homeland Security. In fact, Harvard did respond to the Department’s requests as required by law.”

The ban’s consequences go beyond just the students currently affected. A large number of Harvard’s athletes, with about 21% of players across different sports in the 2024 to 2025 season coming from other countries, would be seriously impacted by losing international student-athletes. The Chinese government spoke out against the ban, saying it would harm the United States’ reputation globally. Chinese students make up a significant part of Harvard’s international community, with 1,203 students from China enrolled in 2024.

Kristi “The dog must die” Noem‘s war on intelligence just opened up a new front, with her dropping a nuclear bomb on America’s world-renowned colleges and universities. For months, Harvard University has been in their sights, with the Trump istration incandescent with rage that they refused to bow to their authoritarian and fascistic demands.

Noem had already slid a noose over Harvard’s neck by threatening to remove its tax-exempt status, now, she’s kicked the stool away with an outright ban on the university enrolling any foreign students at all.

In retaliation for their refusing to hand over confidential student disciplinary records, Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification has been yanked away, meaning the 6,800 students currently studying there (and the countless thousands hoping to) will now have to look elsewhere.

This is some authoritarian shit. Noem said since Harvard won’t give her disciplinary records on students, she’s terminating their foreign exchange student program immediately, and ordered that foreign students must transfer to other schools or have visas revoked. pic.twitter.com/oV3TXVVb1x

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) May 22, 2025

In eyebrow-raising comments, she identified Qatar as a driving force for anti-Semitism on campus. If you’ve been keeping notes, this is the same Qatar from which Donald Trump just accepted a $400 million bribe in the form of his new “flying palace” personal jet. This move appears to have happened on the advice of the Israeli consul in New York, who accuse Qatar of masterminding and funding pro-Palestine campus protests.

Then, pulling out an oldie from the classics, she also accused Harvard of being under the influence of communism, saying the university is “fostering violence, antisemitism and coordinating with the Chinese Communist party on its campus”.

Harvard is being held able for collaboration with the C, fostering violence, antisemitism, and pro-terrorist conduct from students on its campus. pic.twitter.com/bdJDTtJr8O

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) May 22, 2025

Kristi, I think the ongoing genocide against Palestinians gives students reason enough to protest, they don’t need Qatar or China pulling their strings!

America’s IQ is plummeting 1aq4w

Whatever the reasoning, this is giving the United States a lobotomy. Most countries would kill to have an educational institution like Harvard within their borders. Its international prominence and reputation attract the brightest and most innovative minds from around the world to this country. Many graduates remain here permanently, either creating successful new companies or contributing to cutting-edge research. Now they will go elsewhere, rightfully dismissing American education as stagnant and backwards.

But Noem isn’t stopping there, threatening that “this should be a warning to every other university to get your act together”. Presumably, she wants all higher education to be turning out good little Trumpites tossing their MAGA hats in the air on graduation day and being presented with a copy of The Art of the Deal by the Dean.

Thanks to Noem, America’s collective IQ just took another tumble. But let’s face it, the more stupid people there are, the more Trump voters there’ll be.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon has apparently managed to send a threatening letter to Harvard University that reads like it was composed by a middle schooler.

This week, McMahon—yes, the former WWE executive whose primary educational qualification appears to be watching people get hit with folding chairs—fired off what was meant to be a stern warning to Harvard University’s President Dr. Alan Garber. The letter threatened to withhold federal funding unless the prestigious institution bent to the istration’s demands. What followed was nothing short of linguistic carnage.

Critics purportedly mocked the letter’s tone, its amateurish construction, and its apparent failure to make a persuasive argument. Even Harvard—purportedly not one to engage in petty battles—allegedly couldn’t resist marking up the letter like an overachieving TA correcting a poorly written term paper.

According to reports, the letter purportedly accused Harvard of violating federal laws, failing to uphold American values, and allowing pro-Palestinian demonstrations to create what was described as a hostile environment on campus. McMahon purportedly railed against Harvard’s issions policies, immigration practices, and even its supposed teaching of remedial math.

The letter reportedly used “systemic” where it likely meant “systematic,” capitalized random words like “Federal Government,” and included rhetorical questions like, “Where do many of these ‘students’ come from, who are they, how do they get into Harvard, or even into our country—and why is there so much HATE?”

Social media posts showed images of the letter marked up in red ink, with Harvard noting everything from run-on sentences to inconsistent verb tenses. If true, this would be the equivalent of a chef sending back a poorly cooked steak with a handwritten recipe for how to do it better.

For his part, Harvard President Garber has reportedly shown no intention of capitulating. The university has filed a lawsuit challenging the funding freeze, characterizing the government’s demands as “sweeping and intrusive.” This legal battle could set significant precedents regarding governmental authority over educational institutions, regardless of which side prevails.

Whether you view Harvard as an elitist bastion of privilege or as a beacon of academic excellence, there’s something deeply troubling about a government that threatens educational funding while seemingly unable to compose a coherent letter explaining why. In the battle between Harvard and the Trump, the first casualty appears to have been the English language itself.

The Trump istration started a t investigation into Harvard University and its Law Review. The investigation accuses the journal of race-based discrimination in how it selects articles and . The civil rights offices of the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services are conducting the investigation. They are looking into possible violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This law stops organizations that receive federal money from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin. The investigation began after the Washington Free Beacon published an article three days earlier, per The Crimson. That article included leaked memos and Slack messages. These messages suggested that the Law Review gave preference to non-white authors and applicants when choosing articles.

The communications reportedly showed that race was seen as a positive factor during the review process. Editors were also encouraged to think about “DEI factors” (diversity, equity, and inclusion). The government agencies directly pointed to this reporting as the reason for their investigation.

Harvard Law under investigation for discrimination based on race a1454

According to ed.gov and ABC news, the istration claims that the Harvard Law Review’s article selection process “appears to pick winners and losers based on race.” They argue this could break Title VI by putting race ahead of merit. If Harvard is found guilty, the consequences could be serious.

The university might lose federal funding. This investigation is part of a larger conflict between the Trump istration and Harvard. Earlier in April, the istration froze more than $2.2 billion in federal funding for Harvard. This happened because the university refused to follow demands from an earlier review by an antisemitism task force. Harvard then sued to stop the funding freeze, saying the istration’s actions were illegal.

On top of this, the Internal Revenue Service is reportedly thinking about taking away Harvard’s tax-exempt status. The Harvard Law Review is run by students and operates independently from Harvard Law School. However, the investigation will look at how the two are connected. This includes financial ties, oversight procedures, and selection policies.

A Harvard University spokesperson said the university follows the law and will look into any possible violations. The spokesperson also noted that the Law Review is independent. The Law Review itself did not respond right away to requests for comment. This is not the first time the Law Review has faced these kinds of accusations. In 2018, a lawsuit claimed discrimination in article and hip selection, but a Massachusetts District Court dismissed the case.