The Trump administration is investigating whether Harvard’s admissions policies comply with a Supreme Court ruling that ended affirmative action, opening a new front in its widening effort to bring the institution to heel.
In a letter on Monday, the Justice Department notified Harvard about an investigation into whether its admissions process had been used to defraud the government. The inquiry was opened under the False Claims Act, a law designed to punish those who swindle the government, according to the letter, which was reviewed by The New York Times.
The investigation adds to the mounting pressure on the nation’s oldest, wealthiest university to overhaul its admissions, curriculum and hiring practices to align with President Trump’s political agenda. The Education Department also informed Harvard earlier this month that its admissions policies were the subject of a new compliance review to determine whether the university was racially discriminating against undergraduate applicants, according to a letter from the agency that was also seen by The Times.
The compliance review and the Justice Department investigation have not been previously reported. Targeting a university under the False Claims Act is highly unusual, reflecting the administration’s increasingly aggressive tactics.
False Claims Act investigations typically focus on contractors accused of bilking the government. If it is found liable, Harvard will have to return money to the government and could be fined hundreds of millions of dollars.
The new inquiries push the administration deeper into a politically combustible debate over wealth, privilege and race. It is also the latest example of the Trump administration’s willingness to use the vast powers of the Justice Department to further its political goals.
Harvard spokesman Jonathan Swain said that the university is committed to following the law and that it is in compliance with the Supreme Court decision. He added that Harvard would continue to defend itself against the government.
“This investigation is yet another abusive and retaliatory action — the latest of many — that the administration has initiated against Harvard,” Mr. Swain said, adding that the government’s actions “will lead to devastating consequences for our nation’s health, economic prosperity, and scientific leadership.”
He said that officials who review applications to the college do not have access to self-reported race and ethnicity data from potential students, and that the admissions office does not look at or consider the racial and ethnic composition of the applicant pool until the admissions cycle is completed.
Harvard has basked in acclaim from White House critics for fighting back so far. After Mr. Trump threatened the school’s federal funding, Harvard sued the administration, and legal experts said the university has a strong case.
But behind closed doors, several senior officials at Harvard and on its top governing board have acknowledged they are in an untenable crisis. Even if Harvard quickly wins in court, they have determined, the school will still face wide-ranging funding problems and continuing investigations by the administration.
Some university officials even fear that the range of civil investigations could turn into full-blown criminal inquiries.
The clash with Harvard is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to redefine the traditional parameters of civil rights battles and realign what he views as the liberal tilt of elite college campuses.
Instead of prioritizing discrimination against minorities or students with disabilities, the Trump White House has focused on rooting out policies aimed at promoting racial diversity or that allowed transgender student athletes to participate in women’s sports.
Mr. Trump and his allies have suggested that a Supreme Court ruling in 2023 that forced colleges to stop considering race in admissions can be applied more broadly, to other federally funded programs.
Earlier this month, the Education Department halted $1 billion in grants for mental health services for public school students. The department cited concerns about the application process, which under the Biden administration favored bids from providers that included diversity goals for hiring counselors or highlighted the importance of handling “racial stress and trauma” of students.
Mr. Trump has also focused on antisemitism, the initial reason the administration targeted Harvard and a handful of other elite universities.
The two sides have been in a standoff since early April, when Harvard decided to take on the White House over an emailed list of demands on hiring, admissions and curriculum so intrusive, the institution said it had no other option but to fight.
The letter was sent by mistake, Trump officials have said privately, but the university moved forward with a lawsuit against the administration over its threats to cut billions in federal funding if the university did not comply. Already, the administration has canceled roughly $2.7 billion in grants, frozen nearly $1 billion in funding for Harvard’s research partners and disqualified the university from future research grants.
The 14-page letter about the False Claims Act investigation this week from the Justice Department, signed by Jamie Ann Yavelberg, the director of the agency’s commercial litigation branch, did not detail exactly how Harvard may have defrauded the government.
Instead, the primary focus was on demands that Harvard produce a trove of documents and provide written answers to a list of detailed questions in the next three weeks. The government is also seeking any text messages, emails or other communications from Harvard officials discussing President Trump’s executive orders earlier this year aimed at rooting out diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
The Justice Department also gave Harvard 30 days to identify a school official to testify under oath about its admissions policies — and how those polices may have changed after the Supreme Court ruling in 2023. The college was a party to the case, and at the time, Harvard officials vowed to comply with the ruling.
While Harvard can try to fight the demands for documents and testimony, it is highly unlikely that a judge would side with the school, as the government has wide latitude to investigate. If the Justice Department ultimately concluded that Harvard violated the False Claims Act, the government could sue the school. At that point, Harvard would likely mount a vigorous defense in court that could play out for years.
The Education Department is also seeking significant amounts of data.
Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary for civil rights, wrote in a letter to Alan Garber, the president of Harvard, that the school had been “selected” for one of the agency’s periodic compliance reviews, which would require access to university data and personnel.
Targets for compliance reviews are chosen based on statistical data and information from parents, advocacy groups, the media and community organizations, according to the letter.
In an interview on May 6 with CNBC+, a streaming subscription platform, Linda McMahon, the education secretary, said Harvard must comply with the Supreme Court ruling.
“We’ve seen some results that they’re not doing it,” Ms. McMahon said, without offering specifics.
In the four and a half weeks since Harvard criticized the government’s demands as overly intrusive and said it would not comply, the administration has aimed at least eight investigations and other actions against the university.
On April 16, the Department of Homeland Security threatened to block Harvard from enrolling international students unless the school delivered detailed records about the student body. On April 17, the Education Department accused the college of failing to report large foreign donations as required by law and demanded that Harvard produce a lengthy list of documents.
On April 25, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission opened an investigation into whether Harvard and its affiliates had discriminated against white, Asian, male and heterosexual applicants and training program participants. On April 28, the Education Department and the Health and Human Services Department started investigating the use of racial preferences at the Harvard Law Review.
On May 2, Mr. Trump used his social media platform to threaten to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status, a move that Harvard officials argued had no legal basis.
On Tuesday, the government said it was ending about $450 million in research funding for the school.
The university amended its lawsuit against the Trump administration on Tuesday, saying the government had “doubled down” on its tactics as it “ratcheted up funding cuts, investigations, and threats that will hurt students from every state in the country and around the world.”
According to the university, at least half a dozen federal departments and agencies have sent notices in the last week about grants being terminated.
Michael C. Bender is a Times political correspondent covering President Trump, the Make America Great Again movement and other federal and state elections.
Michael S. Schmidt is an investigative reporter for The Times covering Washington. His work focuses on tracking and explaining high-profile federal investigations.
The post Trump Administration Escalates Harvard Feud With New Justice Dept. Investigation appeared first on New York Times.
