White House Sues Harvard Over Campus Antisemitism Claims, Seeks Federal Funds Back

Updated March 20, 2025, at 1:32 p.m.

The United States Department of Justice sued Harvard on Friday, alleging that the University violated federal civil rights law by failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students from harassment on campus.

The 44-page complaint — filed in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts — accuses Harvard of remaining “deliberately indifferent” to antisemitic and anti-Israeli conduct following the October 7, 2023 attacks. The White House alleged that Harvard allowed a hostile environment to persist while continuing to receive billions in taxpayer-funded research grants.

The lawsuit seeks both injunctive relief and the recovery of federal funds, arguing that Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns, a Clinton appointee and Harvard Law School alumnus.

Federal attorneys alleged that Jewish and Israeli students were subjected to “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” harassment, including verbal abuse, physical intimidation, and exclusion from campus spaces. The filing claims some students concealed religious identifiers out of fear for their safety, while others withdrew from campus life altogether.

The complaint also accuses Harvard of failing to fairly enforce its own disciplinary policies during protests and demonstrations, even when those activities disrupted classes. The filing claimed that University administrators allowed rule violations — including encampments, building occupations, and classroom disruptions — to continue with limited or no consequences.

A Harvard spokesperson defended the University’s efforts to address antisemitism in a statement, writing that Harvard’s response constituted the “very opposite of deliberate indifference.”

The University cited enhanced student and faculty training and new initiatives on civil discourse as “substantive, proactive steps” taken to confront antisemitism and said it would continue that work as it confronts the Trump administration in court.

That effort has included policy changes, including Harvard's move last January to rework its non-discrimination policies to specify protections for Zionists and adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s controversial definition of antisemitism.

And in August, it restructured its Office for Community Support, Non-Discrimination, Rights, and Responsibilities, adding a designated Title VI coordinator for issues of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin and launching mandatory Title VI and Title IX training for affiliates.

The lawsuit marks the latest escalation in a now yearlong conflict between the federal government and Harvard. Over the past year, the Trump administration has frozen research funding, launched multiple investigations, and challenged the University’s governance and admissions practices.

Harvard has pushed back against the Trump administration’s attacks in court, winning a key ruling last September that restored more than $2.7 billion in federal funding after a judge found earlier cuts unconstitutional. That decision is currently under appeal.

The Justice Department asked the court on Friday to appoint an independent monitor to oversee the University’s compliance — a demand the Trump administration has levied since last April — and to allow the federal government to recoup grant funding issued during the period of alleged noncompliance.

The lawsuit signals the latest collapse of the on-again off-again settlement talks between Harvard and the Trump administration. According to the complaint, the Department of Health and Human Services, in partnership with other federal agencies, had worked since July to “secure Harvard’s compliance with Title VI by voluntary means” but was unsuccessful in negotiations.

The complaint also calls on the court to require Harvard to more actively involve law enforcement in policing campus protests. Federal attorneys asked that the University adopt policies mandating cooperation with police to remove and arrest demonstrators who block access to campus spaces. (Harvard has avoided turning to law enforcement during student protests — including during the 20-day pro-Palestine encampment in spring 2024 — in contrast with several peer institutions.)

That encampment marked the apex of months of heightened campus tensions following the October 7 attacks, which sent shockwaves through Harvard and placed the University under a microscope as it faced heavy external criticism for its handling of student activism.

In response to the encampment, Harvard suspended five students for their participation and placed more than 20 on probation. The College also withheld the degrees of 13 graduating seniors. 11 of those students later received their diplomas, and the five suspended students saw the decision reversed.

Harvard also took action against student groups involved in protest activity. The Palestine Solidarity Committee was placed on probation shortly before the encampment, then suspended, and later — in April 2025 — placed back on probation for violating campus use policy.

At the same time, Garber launched a broader effort to assess campus climate. Most notably, he announced two expansive presidential task forces, one to scrutinize antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias and another to investigate bias against Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian students.

Across more than 300 pages, the antisemitism and anti-Israel bias report found that Jewish and Israeli students experienced hostility and social exclusion on campus, identified imbalanced and “politicized” academic programming, and encouraged a ban on masks to more easily address protests.

But the task force was careful to distinguish its work from an external pressure campaign against the University, urging that reforms be undertaken internally.

The lawsuit draws heavily on those findings, as well as a prior federal investigation led by the Department of Health and Human Services. Lawyers for the government wrote that Harvard had actual knowledge of the alleged harassment but failed to take sufficient corrective action.

—Staff writer Hugo C. Chiasson can be reached at [email protected] or on Signal at hcc.35. Follow him on X @HugoChiassonn.

—Staff writer Elise A. Spenner can be reached at [email protected] or on Signal at elisespenner.82. Follow her on X @EliseSpenner.